London Assurance Corp. v. Dinsmore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

London Assurance Corp. v. Dinsmore

22 A.D. 626

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 1, 1897

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D. 626 (London Assurance Corp. v. Dinsmore) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

London Assurance Corp. v. Dinsmore, 22 A.D. 626 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

In this case the learned referee held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the defendant’s counterclaim, asking that the policy should be reformed, but he •allowed the plaintiff to recover for the loss upon the turpentine stored in the sheds of Downing & Co., and which was destroyed by fire, and fixed the defendant’s liability at thirty-four dollars and nine cents, for which ;sum he directed judgment. For the reasons stated upon the decision of the appeal in the Thompson Case (ante, p. 64), we agree with the referee in limiting the loss to the • turpentine destroyed. We think, therefore, that the judgment in this case was right, and it is affirmed, with costs to the respondent. Present - - Van Brunt, P. J., Rumsey, Patterson, O’Brien and Ingraham, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam:

In this case the learned referee held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the defendant’s counterclaim, asking that the policy should be reformed, but he •allowed the plaintiff to recover for the loss upon the turpentine stored in the sheds of Downing & Co., and which was destroyed by fire, and fixed the defendant’s liability at thirty-four dollars and nine cents, for which ;sum he directed judgment. For the reasons stated upon the decision of the appeal in the Thompson Case (ante, p. 64), we agree with the referee in limiting the loss to the • turpentine destroyed. We think, therefore, that the judgment in this case was right, and it is affirmed, with costs to the respondent. Present - - Van Brunt, P. J., Rumsey, Patterson, O’Brien and Ingraham, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D. 626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/london-assurance-corp-v-dinsmore-nyappdiv-1897.