McFadden v. Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co.

162 F. 783, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 5191
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania
DecidedJuly 22, 1908
DocketNo. 14
StatusPublished

This text of 162 F. 783 (McFadden v. Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
McFadden v. Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co., 162 F. 783, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 5191 (circtedpa 1908).

Opinion

J. B. McPHERSON,

District Judge. This is an action brought to recover upon a policy of fire insurance issued by the defendant upon certain cotton stored in the city of New York. It was first tried in November, 1907, before a jury, but the verdict was afterwards set aside. At that trial the parties entered into the following stipulation concerning nearly all the facts :

“And now this 12th day of November, 1907, it is agreed that no evidence need be offered by either of the parties to this cause in support of the facts hereinafter set forth, but that either of the parties hereto may read this stipulation or any part thereof as conclusive evidence of any of said facts at any trial of this cause. But: nothing heroin contained shall in any wise preclude either party from offering evidence as to and upon the several factors or elements that should be considered in determining the actual cash value of the property described in the hereinafter specified policy of insurance. The facts thus agreed upon are as follows:
“On the 18th day of .January, 1902, the defendant issued to plaintiffs its policy No. 620SK95, by which it undertook to insure plaintiffs ‘for a term of -from the eighth day of January. 1902, at noon to the-day of —■—•— 19— at noon, against all direct loss or damage by fire, except as hereinafter provided, to an amount not exceeding-dollars upon the following described property and contained as described herein and not elsewhere, to wit: On merchandise as specified the property of the assured named herein or held by said assured in trust or on commission, or sold and not delivered, in such place or places for such amounts and for such time and at such premium as shall be indorsed in writing on a memorandum book attached hereto and approved by this company.’
“By said policy it was provided that ‘this company shall not be liable beyond the actual cash value of the property at the time any loss or damage occurs, and the loss or damage shall be ascertained or estimated according to such actual cash value with proper deduction for depreciation however caused, and shall in no event exceed what it would then cost the insured to repair or replace the same with material of like kind and quality.’
“By writing indorsed upon said policy it was further provided as follows:
“ ’Tills company shall not be liable for a greater proportion of any loss or damage to the property described herein than the sum hereby insured bears to eighty per centum (80%) of the actual cash value of said property at the time such loss shall happen. * * * If the Insurance under this policy be divided into two or more items these clauses shall apply to each item separately.’
“A copy of said policy is hereto attached marked ‘Exhibit A,’ and made a part hereof.
“The memorandum book therein referred to was filled, and all the insurance thereby granted has expired before the happening of the fire hereinafter referred to. No copy of said memorandum book is therefore attached [784]*784hereto. After said memorandum book bad been so filled, defendant granted further insurance to plaintiffs under said policy upon separate slip certificates, all of which were in the form of which a copy is hereto. annexed, marked ‘Exhibit B’ and made a part hereof, differing therefrom in the property insured, in the term of the insurance, and in the premium therefor.
“All of the insurance thus granted by the defendant to the plaintiffs was upon cotton in bales owned or held by the'plaintiffs under the terms of said policy. A large part of such insurance was, as hereinafter set forth, upon such cotton stored at Brooklyn, N. Y., in stores known as Bed 1-Iook Stores 339, 344, and 345.
“On the 8th day of June, 1905, plaintiffs had insurance in force on cotton stored in Bed Hook Store No. 344, Brooklyn, N. Y., under said policy and certificates, aggregating the sum of $102,227, and insurance on said cotton there stored, issued by other insurance companies, aggregating $25,155, making a total of $127,382.
“On said date plaintiffs also had insurance in force on cotton stored in Bed Hook Store No. 345, Brooklyn, N. Y., under said policy and certificates, aggregating the sum of $162,942, and insurance thereon issued by another company in the sum of .$507, making a total of $163,449.
“On said date plaintiffs also had insurance in force on cotton stored at Bed Hook Store No. 339, Brooklyn, N. Y., under said policy and certificates, aggregating the sum of $27,363.
“Whether the cash value of said cotton on said date was the amount claimed by the plaintiffs or that claimed by the defendant the insurance thereon was in either case in excess of eighty per centum (80%) of the value thereof; and defendant under said policy was liable pro rata with the other insurance companies on said cotton to reimburse the plaintiffs the full amount of their loss from any fire which might, occur in said cotton not exceeding the amount covered by its policy and certificates.
“On the Sth day of June, 1905, at 8:55 a. m. a fire occurred in said cotton, whereby the same was damaged in a large amount. The amount of damage not being known, the defendant and the other insurance companies concerned in said loss, with plaintiffs’ consent, took possession of all of said cotton and sold the same for the benefit, of all the parties concerned, including the plaintiffs.
“The defendant has paid the plaintiffs on account of the loss and of the proceeds of the sale of said cotton the following amounts:
As to cotton stored in Bed Hook Store No. 344 sums aggregating. .$102,581.47 As to cotton stored in Bed Hook Store No. 345 sums aggregating.... 46,828.29 As to cotton stored in lied Hook Store No. 339 sums aggregating.... 5,611.16
Slaking a total of...$155,020.92
Deducting the amount realized by defendant from the sale 'of said cotton, the amounts so paid by defendant are much less than the total amount of defendant’s insurance upon said cotton. It was therefore the duty of defendant to reimburse plaintiffs for Its proportion of the entire value Of all the insured cotton damaged by fire as aforesaid.
“The cash value of cotton in New York is determined by the prices realized on sales between merchants, which is lyiiown as ‘spot cotton.’ Such sales are sometimes made on the floor of the Exchange, but usually are not so made; ‘spot cotton’ being sold usually between members. Sales of cotton for future delivery, commonly, known as ‘cotton futures,’ are made on the exchange, and constitute the largest .portion of the daily sales on the exchange. Said exchange is open daily at 10 a. m. and closes at 3 p. in., except on Saturday when it. closes at 12 o’clock noon. '
“The by-laws of the New York Cotton Exchange provide that:
“ ‘The board of managers shall appoint a committee on spot quotations composed of seven members of the exchange, more or less actively engaged in the spot cotton business, two of -whom shall retire at the end of each month. It shall be the duty of this committee to meet at the exchange on each business day at 2 p. m., except Saturdays, when it shall meet at 11:30 a. m.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
162 F. 783, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 5191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcfadden-v-liverpool-london-globe-ins-co-circtedpa-1908.