Ripley v. Insurance Co.

Supreme Court

Ripley v. Insurance Co.

83 U.S. 336, 21 L. Ed. 469, 16 Wall. 336, 1872 U.S. LEXIS 1163

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedApril 28, 1873

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 83 U.S. 336 (Ripley v. Insurance 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.

Bluebook

Ripley v. Insurance Co., 83 U.S. 336, 21 L. Ed. 469, 16 Wall. 336, 1872 U.S. LEXIS 1163 (1873).

Pincite

Opinion

The CHIEF JUSTICE

delivered the opinion of the court.

That the deceased was travelling is clear enough, but was travelling on foot travelling by public or' private conyeyanbe?

The contract must receive the construction which the language used fairly warrants. What was' the understanding of the parties, or, rather, what understanding must naturally have been derived from the language used? It seems to us th.at walking would not naturally be presented to the mind as a means of public or private conveyance. Public conveyance naturajly suggests a vessel or vehicle employed in the general conveyance of passengers. Private conveyance suggests a vehicle belonging to a private individual.

If this was the sense in which the language was understood by the parties, the deceased was not, when injured, travelling, within the terms of the policy. There is nothing to show that it was not.

Judgment aeeirmed.

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

The CHIEF JUSTICE

delivered the opinion of the court.

That the deceased was travelling is clear enough, but was travelling on foot travelling by public or' private conyeyanbe?

The contract must receive the construction which the language used fairly warrants. What was' the understanding of the parties, or, rather, what understanding must naturally have been derived from the language used? It seems to us th.at walking would not naturally be presented to the mind as a means of public or private conveyance. Public conveyance naturajly suggests a vessel or vehicle employed in the general conveyance of passengers. Private conveyance suggests a vehicle belonging to a private individual.

If this was the sense in which the language was understood by the parties, the deceased was not, when injured, travelling, within the terms of the policy. There is nothing to show that it was not.

Judgment aeeirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 U.S. 336, 21 L. Ed. 469, 16 Wall. 336, 1872 U.S. LEXIS 1163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ripley-v-insurance-co-scotus-1873.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack