Phoenix Ins. Co., Brooklyn v. Erie & Western Transp. Co
This text of 118 U.S. 210 (Phoenix Ins. Co., Brooklyn v. Erie & Western Transp. Co) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
dissenting.
The insurer of goods which are lost while in custody of a carrier, upon paying the loss, is subrogated to the claim of the insured against the carrier. Hall & Long v. Railroad Companies, 13 Wall., 367. This being so, I think that the insured cannot, by separate agreement with the carrier, deprive the insurer of this right. Such agreement would be res inter alios aeta and void as against the insurer. It would be a fraud upon him. The carrier would thereby protect himself against the consequences of his own negligence, and'compel the insurer to indemnify him without paying any premium. The owner of the goods gives up no right himself against the carrier; but they two agree, behind the insurer’s back, that he shall have no right of subrogation against the carrier, but that the carrier shall have such a right against him, — thus changing the law by their private agreement! It seems to me that this is contrary both to law and justice.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
118 U.S. 210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phoenix-ins-co-brooklyn-v-erie-western-transp-co-scotus-1886.