Sweeny v. Franklin Fire Insurance

20 Pa. 337, 1853 Pa. LEXIS 38
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided March 21, 1853·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered, by

Lowrie, J.

The rule is valuable and well founded, that, he who has no interest, can have no insurance. That he must show his interest, and that it is the extreme measure of his recovery, are the corollaries of the rule. Without this, insurances would soon become a mere system of gambling. These principles are sufficient to affirm the judgment.

It matters not what contracts or conveyances passed between the plaintiff and the company by which this house was erected. The company had no title'to convey to him. So far as the evidence of title goes, it shows that the company entered upon land belonging to the state of Delaware, and erected their house there without any shadow of title or even of license, general or special, They were mere intruders, and if the plaintiff has their whole title, it is a mere intruder’s title. This is not such an interest as the law recognises as a sufficient foundation for the contract of insurance.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Sweeny v. Franklin Fire Insurance, 20 Pa. 337, 1853 Pa. LEXIS 38 (Pa. 1853).

20 Pa. 337 (Sweeny v. Franklin Fire Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Alberici v. Safeguard Mutual Insurance
45 Pa. D. & C.3d 608 (Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, 1986)
Hyman v. Sun Ins. Co.
175 A.2d 247 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1961)
Insurance Co. of North America v. Alberstadt
119 A.2d 83 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1956)
Heidisch v. Globe & Republic Insurance Co. of America
84 A.2d 566 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1951)
Moving Picture Co. of America v. Scottish Union & National Insurance
90 A. 642 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1914)
Aetna Fire Ins. v. Kennedy
50 So. 73 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1909)