Roach v. New York & Erie Insurance

New York Court of Appeals

Roach v. New York & Erie Insurance

30 N.Y. 546

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 5, 1864

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 30 N.Y. 546 (Roach v. New York & Erie Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Roach v. New York & Erie Insurance, 30 N.Y. 546 (N.Y. 1864).

Pincite

Opinion

Mullin, J.

The only question for our consideration on this appeal is, whether the condition annexed to the policy requiring an action to recover the amount of a loss to be brought within six months from the time the loss occurred, is valid? If it is, the action is undoubtedly barred, and the judgment must be reversed.

At the last March term of the court, we held in the case of. Ripley v. The Ætna Insurance Company * that a condition precisely like the one in this case, except that the right to bring the action, was limited to one year, was valid. And that the action not having been brought within the year, ivas barred, and the judgment which was for the plaintiff in that case was reversed.

That case is decisive of this. The judgment must therefore be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.

All the judges concurring, judgment reversed.

*

Ante, p. 136.

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

Mullin, J.

The only question for our consideration on this appeal is, whether the condition annexed to the policy requiring an action to recover the amount of a loss to be brought within six months from the time the loss occurred, is valid? If it is, the action is undoubtedly barred, and the judgment must be reversed.

At the last March term of the court, we held in the case of. Ripley v. The Ætna Insurance Company * that a condition precisely like the one in this case, except that the right to bring the action, was limited to one year, was valid. And that the action not having been brought within the year, ivas barred, and the judgment which was for the plaintiff in that case was reversed.

That case is decisive of this. The judgment must therefore be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.

All the judges concurring, judgment reversed.

*

Ante, p. 136.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 N.Y. 546, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roach-v-new-york-erie-insurance-ny-1864.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack