People v. Standard Plate Glass & Salvage Co.

174 A.D. 501, 156 N.Y.S. 1012, 1916 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9465
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 5, 1916
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 174 A.D. 501 (People v. Standard Plate Glass & Salvage Co.) 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
People v. Standard Plate Glass & Salvage Co., 174 A.D. 501, 156 N.Y.S. 1012, 1916 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9465 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1916).

Opinion

[502]*502The following is the opinion delivered at Special Term:

Rudd, J.:

This action is brought asking for a judgment vacating the charter "of the defendant and annulling its corporate existence, upon the ground and for the reason that the defendant company has exercised insurance powers and is doing an insurance business contrary to the statute.

The defendant interposed a demurrer to the complaint alleging a single ground, that the complaint fails to set forth facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

This action is brought under an order of the Special Term granting leave to the Attorney-General pursuant to section 131 of the General Corporation Law (Consol. Laws, chap. 23; Laws of 1909, chap. 28).

The defendant is clearly doing, or attempting to do, an insurance business. Defendant’s proposed contract provides for the care for a fixed term, for a certain consideration, of plate glass, and in the event that the glass is broken within the period of the running of the contract the defendant agrees to replace the broken glass.

A plate glass insurance policy issued by a company authorized to do plate glass insurance provides for the replacing of glass in the event of its being broken or for the payment of a given sum of money, either one or the other.

The fact that the defendant’s contract provides, in addition to the replacing of a broken glass, to keep the glass puttied in the frame during the period of the contract is quite beside the mark. This provision of the contract is simply in the nature of an inspection, and is really for the protection of the company insuring the glass. Because the company agrees to inspect and to putty does not alter in any way the nature of the contract. No plate glass owner enters into one of these contracts, agreeing to pay a stipulated sum for the purpose of having his window glass puttied, he takes it for the purpose of insuring himself against loss by reason of the breakage of the glass.

[503]*503It looks like an attempt to evade the provisions of the Insurance Law.

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

Related

Transportation Guarantee Co. v. Jellins
174 P.2d 625 (California Supreme Court, 1946)
Jordan v. Group Health Ass'n
107 F.2d 239 (D.C. Circuit, 1939)
Moresh v. O'Regan
187 A. 619 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1936)
Equity Service Corp. v. Agull
156 Misc. 552 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1935)
Barna v. Clifford Country Estates, Inc.
143 Misc. 813 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
174 A.D. 501, 156 N.Y.S. 1012, 1916 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9465, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-standard-plate-glass-salvage-co-nyappdiv-1916.