Case ID: ny-sup-ct_10/html/0608-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CHARLES H. MEAD and another, Respondents, v. THE WESTCHESTER FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant.
    
      Policy of Insurance — when action to reform, cannot be sustained.
    
    One Foley applied to the agent of the defendant to insure “ my house.” In the year preceding the application, Foley owned and resided in a dwelling-hou%e on the Oornwall road, but at the time of the application he resided in and owned a two and a half story frame building, occupied as a dwelling and paint shop. The policy issued covered the house on the Cornwall road, the agent testifying that he thought that that was the house Foley wished to insure. In an action brought to reform the contract, held, that the minds of the parties never met in an agreement, and that the action could not be maintained.
    Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, entered upon the report of a referee.
    
      O. Frost, for the appellant.
    
      Qassedy & Brown, for the respondents.
   Opinion by Barnard, P. J.

Present— Barnard, P. J., Tappen and Donohue, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted at circuit, costs to abide the event.