Robinson v. Cator
This text of 26 A. 959 (Robinson v. Cator) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case is similar to the preceding case in all material respects, save that in this case the association never [73]*73gave its assent to the assignment to Mr. Robinson of the policy issued to Faulkner for the sum of one thousand dollars. This Court held in the case of the New York Life Ins. Co. vs. Flack, 3 Md., 353, that “knowledge of the assignment could only be important to it in one view: to prevent the possibility of its being compelled to pay both the assignee and the legal representatives of the insured. In fire policies there is, generally, a condition, that any assignment will he void without the assent of the underwriters be first obtained. The reason of this obvious. A fire policy may be underwritten for one person, when it would not be for another. In all such cases, the character for integrity and caution of the party constitute important considerations. While the character of one person would be a complete guaranty that he would not fire his own house or goods, the character of his assignee might furnish no such assurance, and therefore it is that in fire policies the assent of the underwriters is indispensable to the validity of the assignment. No such reason obtains in the case of an insurance on human life.”
Affirming this view, and for the reasons assigned in the preceding case, we affirm the decree.
Decree affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
26 A. 959, 78 Md. 72, 1893 Md. LEXIS 70, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-cator-md-1893.