New Jersey Rubber Co. v. Commercial Union Assurance Co. of London

Supreme Court of New Jersey

New Jersey Rubber Co. v. Commercial Union Assurance Co. of London

44 A. 848, 64 N.J.L. 51, 35 Vroom 51, 1899 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 19

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedNovember 13, 1899

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 44 A. 848 (New Jersey Rubber Co. v. Commercial Union Assurance Co. of London) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

New Jersey Rubber Co. v. Commercial Union Assurance Co. of London, 44 A. 848, 64 N.J.L. 51, 35 Vroom 51, 1899 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 19 (N.J. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Garrison, J.

This is an action upon a policy of insurance. The plaintiff declares upon a contract by the defendant to insure it against loss by fire to an .amount not exceeding $5,000 on the stock and raw material in the frame storehouse of the plaintiff. A total loss is alleged. The defendant gave notice with its plea of the general issue of four special matters of defence—

First. The concealment by the plaintiff of material facts and circumstances.

Becond. The misrepresentation by the plaintiff of the same.

Third. The false representation by the plaintiff that policies concurrent and proportionate in all respects with that issued by the defendant were then being taken out for the same property.

Fourth. That the policy was delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff upon the condition that it should not take effect until plaintiff purchased other insurance concurrent and proportionate as above.

Upon these issues of blended law and facts a trial was had before the Circuit Court, a jury being waived. The testimony was open to two inferences—one that the concurrent insurance was a condition precedent, the other that it was only an expectation not embodied in the written contract. It was a question that the court, sitting as a jury, must decide in reaching its conclusion. It was decided against the defendant, expressly and necessarily. With this fact established it is futile to consider the other points that were argued. The judgment of the Circuit Court, based upon this finding, is as unassailable in this court as the verdict of a jury would be. Mills v. Mott, 30 Vroom 15.

No bill of exceptions raises any other question. The judgment is affirmed.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Garrison, J.

This is an action upon a policy of insurance. The plaintiff declares upon a contract by the defendant to insure it against loss by fire to an .amount not exceeding $5,000 on the stock and raw material in the frame storehouse of the plaintiff. A total loss is alleged. The defendant gave notice with its plea of the general issue of four special matters of defence—

First. The concealment by the plaintiff of material facts and circumstances.

Becond. The misrepresentation by the plaintiff of the same.

Third. The false representation by the plaintiff that policies concurrent and proportionate in all respects with that issued by the defendant were then being taken out for the same property.

Fourth. That the policy was delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff upon the condition that it should not take effect until plaintiff purchased other insurance concurrent and proportionate as above.

Upon these issues of blended law and facts a trial was had before the Circuit Court, a jury being waived. The testimony was open to two inferences—one that the concurrent insurance was a condition precedent, the other that it was only an expectation not embodied in the written contract. It was a question that the court, sitting as a jury, must decide in reaching its conclusion. It was decided against the defendant, expressly and necessarily. With this fact established it is futile to consider the other points that were argued. The judgment of the Circuit Court, based upon this finding, is as unassailable in this court as the verdict of a jury would be. Mills v. Mott, 30 Vroom 15.

No bill of exceptions raises any other question. The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A. 848, 64 N.J.L. 51, 35 Vroom 51, 1899 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 19, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-jersey-rubber-co-v-commercial-union-assurance-co-of-london-nj-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack