« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
1849, and ending on the 24th day of October, 1854.” The said insurance company did therefore promise to settle and pay unto the said Cohoes Company, their successors or assigns, all losses and damage, not exceeding in the aggregate the sum of $1,000, which shall or may happen to the aforesaid property, by reason of or by means of fire, during the time said policy shall remain in force.
And said plaintiff further says, that since the said policy of insurance was executed and delivered to the Cohoes Company, the said brick building mentioned in said policy has been damaged by fire, which occurred on the morning of the 22d day of November, 1849, between the hours of 12 and 4 A. M., which was a loss to the said Cohoes Company to the amount of $3,000, expended in repairing and rebuilding said building, as near as the same can be estimated.
And the said plaintiff further says, that due notice of said fire and proof of losses were given to said insurance company in the manner required by them, and according to the conditions of said policy, three months before the commencement of this action.
And the said plaintiff further says, that since said fire, and since notice thereof was given by said Cohoes Company to said insurance company, the said Cohoes Company, for value received, did duly sell, assign and set over to the said plaintiff the said policy of insurance, and all dues and demands arising thereon, and its claim against defendants for such loss.
1 In a complaint on a policy of insurance by an assignee of a policy, an averment that the assured " duly assigned and transferred” to the plaintiff, “all his interest” in the policy, indicates that the assignment was by a sealed instrument, and from that fact, a consideration for the assignment will be inferred. (Fowler v. The New-York Indemnity Insurance Co., 23 Barb., 143.)
Whereupon the said plaintiff demands judgment against the said defendants for the sum of $1,000, and interest thereon from the 28th day of November, 1849, and the costs of this action.
( No. 53.)
On a policy of insurance of a vessel for inland navigation.
SUPREME COURT – RENSSELAER COUNTY.
Ebenezer L. Mallary and Benjamin H.
agt. The Merchants' Insurance Company.
The plaintiffs complain of the defendant, and allege:
That the defendant is a corporation, duly organized and incorporated under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, doing business at the city of Philadelphia, to wit, the business of insuring vessels and their cargoes against the adventures and perils of the seas, fires, &c. ,
That by a certain policy of insurance, bearing date April 4th, 1857, the defendant, in consideration of the sum of $30, then paid by said plaintiffs to the defendant, did promise and agree with and did cause the plaintiffs to be insured in the sum of $1,000, lost or not lost, at and from Troy, N. Y., to New-York city, New Brunswick, N. J., and vice versa, from the date thereof until the close of navigation, on the Hudson river, with privilege to proceed to Philadelphia, via the Raritan canal; no loss under the said policy being payable unless amounting to $50 and upwards, upon the hull, tackle, furniture and apparel of the barge called the E. A. Meneely, owned by the said plaintiffs.
And that in and by said policy it was agreed that the adventures and perils, which the said company should bear and take upon themselves, are the seas, fires, pirates, rovers, assailing thieves, jettisons (embezzlement and illicit trade excepted in all cases), and such other perils, losses or misfortunes that should come to the hurt, detriment or damage of the said vessel, as might be assumed by said policy and expressed therein. And the plaintiffs aver, that the loss and damage hereinafter stated is such a loss as is assumed by said policy to pay. And it was further agreed, that in case of loss, such loss should be paid by said company in sixty days after proof of loss, proof of interest and adjustment exhibited to the assurers. And the plaintiffs aver, that on the 29th day of June, 1857, on the Hudson river, about one mile north of Coeymans landing, on one of the regular passages of the said barge, E. A. Meneely, from the city of New-York to the city of Troy, a barge, in tow along side the steamer Alida, negligently on the part of said steamer, as plaintiffs are informed and believe, and without fault on the part of the said barge, E. A. Meneely, or the persons or any of them in charge of her, came in collision with the stern of the said barge, E. A. Meneely, and carried away a portion of her upper
deck stanchions and rudder post, and otherwise doing serious damage, and that in consequence of said collision the plaintiffs have suffered loss and damage to the said barge, Meneely, for the repairs required to be done to her by reason of said accident, to the full amount of $263.21.
That the plaintiffs have presented the bill of damage, sustained by reason of the said collision to the vessel of the plaintiffs, to the owners of the said steamer, Alida, and that said owners refuse to remunerate or pay any part of such bill of damages.
That proof of the amount of loss, proof of plaintiffs’ interest, and adjustment has been exhibited to the assurers more than sixty days, but that such assurers, without objection to such proof, or the sufficiency thereof, refuse to pay the same.
Whereupon the plaintiffs demand judgment against the defendants for the damages they have sustained (less one third, as a commutation for the average difference between new repairs and old), amounting in all, with such deduction, to the sum of $175.48, with interest from the 29th of June, 1857, besides costs.
S. & V. S.,
( No. 54.)
For breach of contract of a common carrier to carry goods
safely; action brought to recover value of the goods lost and interest, with damages for breach of contract.
SUPREME COURT-CITY AND COUNTY OF NEW-YORK.
Amon L. Scovill, John D. Goodwin and
Henry E. Morrill
The plaintiffs complain of the defendant, and allege:
That at the time hereinafter next mentioned, at the city of New-York, the plaintiffs were merchants, traders and dealers in that place, carrying on their said business, by and in the partnership name, firm and style of A. L. Scovill & Co., and were then and there the owners of the
several articles or packages of medicine, goods and merchandise hereinafter mentioned, which they had occasion, in the course of their said business, to consign, send and convey, from the city of New-York to the city of Albany, for one S. H. Greenman, to the care and direction of certain persons trading and doing business together in that place by and in the partnership name and firm of Ainsworth & Northrop, with which said Greenman the said plaintiffs had bargained and agreed for the sale of the said medicine, goods and merchandise, to be delivered by the plaintiffs to him as aforesaid.
That on or about the 24th day of May, 1849, the said defendant was, and carried on the business of, a common carrier of goods and merchandises for hire, and the said plaintiffs then and there delivered to the said defendant, and the said defendant then and there accepted and received from the said plaintiffs, as such common carrier, in and on board of a certain vessel of the defendant, then lying at the city of New-York, called the McCoun, three gross of Doctor Rogers' Syrup of Liverwort Tar and Canchalagua, of the value of $288, and one and one-half gross of Vegetable Aperient Pills, of the value of $36, to be safely and securely taken and conveyed by the said defendant, for the said plaintiffs, from the city of New York to Albany aforesaid, by water conveyance, in and on board of the said vessel of the said defendant, by the next trip that the said barge should make from the said city of New-York, and there at Albany aforesaid to be safely and securely delivered by the defendant, his servants or agents, for the said plaintiffs, to the said Ainsworth & Northrop, at No. 15 State-street, Albany, for the said S. H Greenman, for a certain reward to be paid for the same, on the delivery thereof as aforesaid ; on which occasion, and on the delivery to the said defendant by the said plaintiffs, and