McMaster v. President & Directors of Insurance of North America

New York Supreme Court

McMaster v. President & Directors of Insurance of North America

64 Barb. 536, 1873 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 36

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 23, 1873

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 64 Barb. 536 (McMaster v. President & Directors of Insurance of North America) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McMaster v. President & Directors of Insurance of North America, 64 Barb. 536, 1873 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 36 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1873).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

We think the court at Special Term committed no error in admitting evidence of mistake in the statement (in the proofs of loss) that the property in question was covered by other insurance. The plaintiff is not concluded by that statement. There is no reason for holding it an estoppel, as it does not appear that the defendants were misled by it to their injury, but the contrary appears.

If the evidence of mistake in the statement was correctly admitted, the point of affirmative defence, to wit, the existence of other insurance on behalf of Lake upon the same property, was met by it, and the finding of the court against such alleged additional insurance is upheld by it.

There is, therefore, no ground for reversing the judgment, and it must be affirmed, with costs.

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

By the Court.

We think the court at Special Term committed no error in admitting evidence of mistake in the statement (in the proofs of loss) that the property in question was covered by other insurance. The plaintiff is not concluded by that statement. There is no reason for holding it an estoppel, as it does not appear that the defendants were misled by it to their injury, but the contrary appears.

If the evidence of mistake in the statement was correctly admitted, the point of affirmative defence, to wit, the existence of other insurance on behalf of Lake upon the same property, was met by it, and the finding of the court against such alleged additional insurance is upheld by it.

There is, therefore, no ground for reversing the judgment, and it must be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 Barb. 536, 1873 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 36, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcmaster-v-president-directors-of-insurance-of-north-america-nysupct-1873.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack