Riggs v. Commercial Mutual Insurance

The Superior Court of New York City

Riggs v. Commercial Mutual Insurance

19 Jones & S. 466

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedMarch 3, 1885

StatusPublished

This text of 19 Jones & S. 466 (Riggs v. Commercial Mutual Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Riggs v. Commercial Mutual Insurance, 19 Jones & S. 466 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1885).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Curiam.

This was an action to recover for the same loss that was the subject of the case of The Merchants’ S. S. Co. v. The Commercial Mutual Ins. Co. In the present case, the plaintiff is assignee of one Tobias, whose interest, if any, was insured. The defendants claim that Tobias had no insurable interest. The only ground of claim that he had an interest was his owning thirty-six shares of the capital stock of the plaintiff in the above mentioned case, the .owner of the vessel. It is not perceived that he had any interest in the vessel. He was not legal or equitable owner of any part, nor of its earnings, nor any lien in respect of either.

For this reason the judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.

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

Pee Curiam.

This was an action to recover for the same loss that was the subject of the case of The Merchants’ S. S. Co. v. The Commercial Mutual Ins. Co. In the present case, the plaintiff is assignee of one Tobias, whose interest, if any, was insured. The defendants claim that Tobias had no insurable interest. The only ground of claim that he had an interest was his owning thirty-six shares of the capital stock of the plaintiff in the above mentioned case, the .owner of the vessel. It is not perceived that he had any interest in the vessel. He was not legal or equitable owner of any part, nor of its earnings, nor any lien in respect of either.

For this reason the judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 Jones & S. 466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riggs-v-commercial-mutual-insurance-nysuperctnyc-1885.