Rosenthal v. Baltimore American Insurance

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Rosenthal v. Baltimore American Insurance

150 A. 926, 8 N.J. Misc. 434, 1930 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 195

DecidedMay 17, 1930

StatusPublished

This text of 150 A. 926 (Rosenthal v. Baltimore American Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rosenthal v. Baltimore American Insurance, 150 A. 926, 8 N.J. Misc. 434, 1930 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 195 (N.J. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant, under an insurance policy against loss by theft of the plaintiff’s automobile. There is no merit in the appeal. The points raised call for no extended discussion. The judgment of the First District Court of Newark is affirmed. The policy of insurance sued on provides: “This entire policy shall be void if the interest of the assured be or become other than unconditional and sole ownership; or in ease of transfer or [435]*435termination of the interest of the assured other than by death of the assured,” &c. The District Court rendered judgment for the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff had breached the terms of the policy.

With this view we are in accord. The judgment of the District Court is therefore affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant, under an insurance policy against loss by theft of the plaintiff’s automobile. There is no merit in the appeal. The points raised call for no extended discussion. The judgment of the First District Court of Newark is affirmed. The policy of insurance sued on provides: “This entire policy shall be void if the interest of the assured be or become other than unconditional and sole ownership; or in ease of transfer or [435]*435termination of the interest of the assured other than by death of the assured,” &c. The District Court rendered judgment for the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff had breached the terms of the policy.

With this view we are in accord. The judgment of the District Court is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 A. 926, 8 N.J. Misc. 434, 1930 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenthal-v-baltimore-american-insurance-nj-1930.