Case ID: mass_3/html/0486-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      The Court,\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wakefield versus Martin and Trustees.
    The assignment of a policy of insurance, without notice to the underwriter, vesta an equitable interest in the assignee.
    William C. Martin, being indebted to James Scott in the sum of 5000 dollars, and having shipped a parcel of goods on board the ship-, upon which he had effected a policy of insur- [ * 559 ] anee, in order to secure Scott, assigned *the bills of lading and the policy to him by a blank endorsement. A total loss happened. The plaintiff, a creditor of Martin, sum maned Welles, one of the underwriters, as trustee of Martin ; Welles having no knowledge of the assignment to Scott.
    
    The question was, whether this assignment to a creditor, without notice to the underwriters, was good so far as to vest a property in the assignee, and thus preclude an attachment.
    Mr. Parsons, for Scott,
    
    contended that the assignment was good and perfect as between the assignor and assignee, and vested an equitable right in the latter; and although, if the underwriters had actually paid the loss to Martin without notice of the assignment, they would have been discharged, yet that an attaching creditor was in no better condition than the assignor himself.
    Mr. Ames, for the plaintiff,
    contended that a policy of insurance was not assignable ; that it was a mere chose in action, and by law no property vested in the assignee; that the assignor might revoke the authority, or might release and discharge the underwriters; that the attaching creditor stepped in with the authority of the law, and effected this revocation ; and that a contrary doctrine would introduce great frauds.
   The Court,

after taking time, pronounced their opinion unant, mously, that the assignment, though without the knowledge or assent of the underwriter, vested an equitable right in the assignee; and. therefore, they discharged the trustees . 
      
       [Sed vide Carroll vs. Boston Marine Insurance Company, 8 Mass. R. 515.— Lazarus vs. The Commonwealth Insurance Company, 5 Pick. 76.—Brichta vs. The La Fayette Insurance Company, 2 Hall, 372.—Ed.]