McGivney v. Phœnix Fire Insurance

New York Supreme Court

McGivney v. Phœnix Fire Insurance

1 Wend. 85

New York Supreme Court·Decided August 15, 1828·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

By the Court,

Savage, Ch. J.

The plaintiff is entitled to judgment. Though the fee of the premises was in another, the plaintiff was in possession under a contract of purchase, had made a payment of interest in pursuance thereof and" had made valuable improvements. He, therefore, had an insurable interest in the premises. The omission of disclo[87] ¡sure of title is not presented by the bill of exceptions as a point raised at the trial, and cannot now be considered.

UTICA, Aug. 1828. Van Nest v. 'Y. eomans.

Judgment for plaintiff.

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

By the Court,

Savage, Ch. J.

The plaintiff is entitled to judgment. Though the fee of the premises was in another, the plaintiff was in possession under a contract of purchase, had made a payment of interest in pursuance thereof and" had made valuable improvements. He, therefore, had an insurable interest in the premises. The omission of disclo[87] ¡sure of title is not presented by the bill of exceptions as a point raised at the trial, and cannot now be considered.

UTICA, Aug. 1828. Van Nest v. 'Y. eomans.

Judgment for plaintiff.

McGivney v. Phœnix Fire Insurance, 1 Wend. 85 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1828).

Pincite

1 Wend. 85 (McGivney v. Phœnix Fire Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related