Smith & Dove Manufacturing Co. v. Travelers' Insurance

50 N.E. 516, 171 Mass. 357, 1898 Mass. LEXIS 90
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMay 23, 1898
StatusPublished
Cited by30 cases

This text of 50 N.E. 516 (Smith & Dove Manufacturing Co. v. Travelers' Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Smith & Dove Manufacturing Co. v. Travelers' Insurance, 50 N.E. 516, 171 Mass. 357, 1898 Mass. LEXIS 90 (Mass. 1898).

Opinion

Holmes, J.

This is an action upon a policy of insurance against loss from liability to employees injured in the course of their employment. There is no dispute that a loss happened that was within the policy, and the only defence is that the plaintiff did not give the defendant “ immediate written notice ” [358]*358of the accident, as required by a proviso of the contract. The accident happened on May 28,1895, and was at once known and inquired into by the plaintiff’s manager, whose duty it was to send the defendant the notice required. But his intention to send notice was interrupted by a strike, which gave him a great deal of trouble, and to which the details of management were subordinated, but, as he very candidly testified, without being wholly given up. The result was that he forgot the notice, or assumed that it had been sent, and that he failed to send it until June 24. These are the facts, and we are of opinion that they show neither a compliance with the condition nor an excuse for not complying with it, even under most of the cases cited in the decision of the majority in Harnden v. Milwaukee Mechanics’ Ins. Co. 164 Mass. 382. It is impossible to say that notice after a month’s delay, due only to the forgetfulness of the agent in charge, is an “ immediate notice ” in any sense. If the word “ immediate ” is satisfied by the use of reasonable diligence on the part of the insured, such diligence is not made out by evidence that an agent upon whom he relied to give notice had a paramount but not exclusive interest in his head which drove out the contract’s requirement and made him forget it. Railway Passenger Assurance Co. v. Burwell, 44 Ind. 460, 463, 464. Whitehurst v. North Carolina Ins. Co. 7 Jones, (N. C.) 433. Trask v. State Ins. Co, 29 Penn. St. 198. Edwards v. Lycoming County Ins. Co. 75 Penn. St. 378. Inman v. Western Ins. Co. 12 Wend. 452, 460.

Judgment on the verdict.

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

Related

Miller v. Dilts
463 N.E.2d 257 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1984)
Barfield v. Insurance Company of North America
443 S.W.2d 482 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1968)
Fisk v. Atlantic National Insurance
236 A.2d 688 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1967)
Lexington Insurance v. Seaboard Air Line Railroad
182 F. Supp. 523 (D. Massachusetts, 1960)
Depot Cafe Inc. v. Century Indemnity Co.
72 N.E.2d 533 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1947)
Ohio Casualty Ins. v. Miller
29 F. Supp. 993 (E.D. Michigan, 1939)
Fireman's Fund Indemnity Co. v. Kennedy
97 F.2d 882 (Ninth Circuit, 1938)
Phillips v. Stone
8 N.E.2d 890 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1937)
Hoffman v. Employer's Liability Assurance Corp.
29 P.2d 557 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1934)
Phelan v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.
5 F. Supp. 810 (D. Wyoming, 1934)
Travelers' Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Scott
218 S.W. 53 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1919)
C. S. Brackett & Co. v. General Accident, Fire & Life Assurance Corp.
167 N.W. 798 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1918)
Phoenix Cotton Oil Co. v. Royal Indemnity Co.
140 Tenn. 438 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1918)
Hagstrom v. American Fidelity Co.
163 N.W. 670 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1917)
Sherwood Ice Co. v. U. S. Casualty Co.
100 A. 572 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1917)
National Paper Box Co. v. Aetna Life Insurance
156 S.W. 740 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1913)
Jefferson Realty Co. v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp.
149 S.W. 1011 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1912)
Greenough v. Phoenix Insurance
92 N.E. 447 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1910)
Newburgh Light, Heat & Power Co. v. Travelers' Insurance
134 A.D. 913 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
50 N.E. 516, 171 Mass. 357, 1898 Mass. LEXIS 90, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-dove-manufacturing-co-v-travelers-insurance-mass-1898.