« 上一頁繼續 »
On a life policy by an araignee.
and on the 14th of August a written notice of the date and purport of the said assignment was given by the plaintiff to the defendants at their said place of business.
4. The plaintiff duly paid the said premium of £— on the 8th of August, 1869, and each succeeding year up to the 8th of August, 1877.
5. The said G. H. died on the 4th of March, 1877, and while the said policy was subsisting and in full force and effect, and proof satisfactory to the defendants was given of the death of the said G. H. on or about the 12th of March aforesaid.
6. All conditions were performed, and all things were done, and all times elapsed necessary to entitle the plaintiff to a performance by the defendants of their said agreement, and to be paid the said £1000 and the bonuses, if any, yet the defendants have not paid the same or any part thereof.
The plaintiff claims £1200.
Insurance-Fire Policies (a).
1. The plaintiff is a grocer carrying on business at
Claim on a fire policy.
Fire policy (a) A fire policy is, like a marine policy, a contract of indemnity, and a contract the assured can only recover the actual loss or damage sustained accord. of indem- ing to the quality and value of the goods at the time of the fire. (Chap. nity.
man v. Pole, 22 L. T. N. S. 306); and it is necessary to show an interest in the subject insured, at the time both of insuring and of the fire. (Lynch v. Dalzell, 4 Bro. P. C. 431 ; Saddlers' Co. v. Budcock, 2 Atk. 554.) Warehousemen and wharfingers may insure their customers' goods
in their custody. (Waters v. Monarch Assurance Co., 5 E. & B. 870; The in- L. J. 25 Q. B. 102.) A carrier may insure the goods in his custody, and surable he may recover the whole value of the goods lost by fire, although the interest. owner of the goods may be disabled from recovering from the carrier by
reason of the value not being declared under the Carriers Act. (London # North-Western Railway Co. v. Glyn, 1 E. & E. 652 ; L. J. 28 Q. B. 188 ;
Ebsworth v. Alliance Marine Insurance Co., L. R. 8 C. P. 596.) Effect of The property intended to be insured must be described in the policy, and alteration there is generally a condition against any alteration in the premises after
the making of the policy; and when this is the case any material alteraperty.
tion will avoid the policy. But where there is no condition of the As to loss
kind a subsequent change, as by setting up a more hazardous trade by negli.
in them, if without fraud, will not destroy the policy. (Pim v. Reid,
6 M. & Gr. 1.) The policy covers a loss by fire owing to the negligence gence of insured.
of the assured himself, if there be no fraud. (Shaw v. Robberds, 6 Ad. & E. 75.)
Unlike a life or murine policy, a fire policy was not assignable except
company, incorporated by Act of Parliament, and carrying on Claim
on business at
a fire in the city of
policy. 2. The plaintiff, by a policy of assurance, No. —, bearing date
- duly effected an insurance against fire with the defendants' company on his stock and utensils in trade and fixtures on the said premises for the total sum of £5000. The following are the particulars : On stock and utensils in trade
£3000 On improvements, additions, fixtures, &c. 2000
£5000 3. The insurance was effected on the terms and conditions in the said policy contained, and it was thereby provided that the same should continue in force until the 25th day of December, 1878.
4. On the 29th day of December, 1877, while the said policy was in full force, a fire broke out on the aforesaid premises and injured or destroyed a large portion of the said stock and utensils in trade and of the said fixtures.
5. The plaintiff at the time of the making of the said policy, and thence until the happening of the said fire, was interested in the said goods and things so insured as aforesaid to the amount for which the same were respectively insured on the said policy.
6. The loss to the plaintiff by reason of the aforesaid fire is a loss by fire within the meaning of the said policy, and all things have happened and all times elapsed necessary to entitle the plaintiff to be paid by the defendants the sums insured on the said policy, but the defendants have not paid the same or any part thereof.
7. By a provision in that behalf contained in the said policy the defendants were authorised to enter into the said premises after the occurrence of the aforesaid loss by fire, and hold possession of the same and the contents thereof for a reasonable time for all reasonable purposes relating to or in connection with the said insurance, and accordingly the plaintiff permitted
with the consent of the insurer (3 Kent Com. 375); but as it is a chose in action, probably the general words of the 25th clause, 6th subsection, of the Judicature Act, 1873, alter this.
the defendants to enter into and take possession of the said premises and the contents thereof.
8. After so entering and taking possession the defendants wrongfully continued in possession for a long and unreasonable time, and wrongfully prevented the plaintiff from getting possession of the said premises and the contents thereof after a reasonable and sufficient time had elapsed for all purposes relating to or connected with the said insurance.
9. By reason of the aforesaid trespasses and wrongful acts of the defendants, the plaintiff has suffered great injury and damage through not being permitted to take proper steps to prevent the goods and things that remained after the fire from being spoilt and damaged by damp and by being prevented from repairing the damage done by the fire to the said premises and the contents thereof, so as to enable himself to recommence his business without unnecessary delay, and by being kept out of possession of the said premises and the said goods and things.
The plaintiff claims :-
mitted by the defendants.
Statement of Defence. Defence. 1. The defendants do not admit the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs
of the statement of claim.
2. The defendants do not admit that a fire broke out on the said premises, or injured or destroyed any of the said stock or utensils in trade or of the said fixtures or fittings as alleged in the 4th paragraph.
3. The defendants deny the several allegations in the 5th paragraph, and say that the plaintiff was not at the time of the happening of the said fire interested in the said goods or things, or any of them, as alleged in the said 5th paragraph.
4. In the circumstances herein appearing the defendants deny the several allegations in the 6th paragraph of the statement of claim, except the allegation that they have not paid
the sums insured by the said policy, or any part thereof. Noncom- 5. The policy effected with the defendants was subject to the pliance
condition that on the happening of any loss or damage by fire with conditions. to any of the property thereby insured, the insured, within fifteen
days after the alleged loss, should deliver to the defendants' On a fire company as particular an account as was reasonably practicable policy. of the several articles and matters alleged to be damaged or
Defence of destroyed by fire, with the estimated value of each of them, and pliance that until such condition had been complied with, no loss
conditions should be recoverable under the said policy ; and the defendants precedent. say that the said condition has not been complied with or fulfilled by the plaintiff.
6. The said policy effected with the defendants was subject to the further condition that the insured, if reasonably required so to do, should give or make proof by vouchers, proofs, or explanations, and by his books of account, of the alleged loss or damage, and that until such condition had been complied with, no loss should be recoverable under the said policy; and the defendants say that the said condition has not been complied with or fulfilled by the plaintiff
. 7. The policy effected with the defendants was subject to the further condition that if after the alleged loss and damage the claim made by the insured should be in any respect fraudu- Fraud. lent, or if any wilful misstatements should be made in support thereof, all benefit under the said policy should be forfeited ; and the defendants say that the claim made by the plaintiff was fraudulent as appears more particularly by the next paragraph herein, and that wilful misstatements, viz., (here follows the substance of the alleged misstatements,) were made in support thereof with intent to induce the defendants to pay the said sum of £5000 or a portion thereof; and the defendants say that in consequence of the premises, all benefit under the said policy became and was thereby forfeited.
8. The said policy effected with the defendants was subject to the further condition that if the fire was occasioned by or through the procurement or connivance of the insured, all benefit under the said policy should be forfeited ; and the defendants say that the said fire was caused by the wilful act, connivance, and procurement of the plaintiff, by which the said policy was and is forfeited.
9. The defendants do not admit that they entered into or took possession of the premises and the contents thereof, or that they continued in possession for a long or unreasonable time, or prevented the plaintiff from getting possession of the
On a fire policy. Defence.
said premises or the contents thereof after a reasonable and sufficient time had elapsed for purposes relating to or connected with the said insurance as alleged in the 8th paragraph of the statement of claim, or at all.
10. Under the circumstances herein appearing, the defendants deny that they exceeded the authority given by the said policy, or committed any wrongful acts or trespasses as alleged, and deny the several allegations in the 9th paragraph of the statement of claim, or that the plaintiff has sustained the injuries or damages, or any of them, therein alleged.
11. If the plaintiff should prove that the defendants are in any way liable to the plaintiff on the said policy, the defendants say that at the time of the alleged loss and damage there were other subsisting insurances covering the same property, and that the defendants, by the terms of the policy effected with the defendants, are not liable to pay or contribute more than the defendants' rateable proportion of the said alleged loss or damage.
Issue as to ownership of shares.
Issue on Claim of Plaintiffs and Defendants to Shares. Middlesex, The plaintiffs affirm and the defendants to wit.
deny :1. That they (the plaintiffs) are the holders of 1200 shares
(a) By Order I. rule 2, “ With respect to interpleader, the procedure and practice now used by courts of Common Law under the Interpleader Acts, 1 & 2 Wm. IV. c. 58, and 23 & 24 Vict. c. 126, shall apply to all actions and all the divisions of the High Court of Justice, and the application by a defendant shall be made at any time after being served with a writ of summons, and before delivering a defence.”
As to the practice and procedure in the case of Interpleader, see the statutes mentioned in the above rule, and also an exhaustive examination of the law and the decisions in Day's Common Law Procedure Acts, 4th ed., p. 353. See also the 6th subsection of the 25th clause of the Judicature Act of 1873, as to interpleading in cases where there is a dispute as to the ownership of an assigned chose in action, and note thereon in Griffith's Judicature Acts, 2nd ed. p. 42.