The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-09-17
Supreme COlart-Circult.


STPT 16-.7cfion against an Insurance Conspdny-7hos.
G M Patton administrator dgt The Long Island Insurance
tor Of the property of Peter Morton deceased left unad
ministered to by Edward Flley late acting executor
is alleged that Edward Filley executor Of Peter
Morton effected insurance of q store No 276 Pearl
street for $500, which he paid premium of 81 25
the Goth Of September 1S4S that the defendants agreed
that they would describe Edward Fiey's property fix
tures and iron safe in policy OF insurance then about
to be made to William Fey other goods in the
ttsre that they would give Edward Fey separate re
cept for the premium he paid that they would cover
the risk by William Filleys policy and that in of
loss they would pay the same rs though the policy bad
defendants did insure William Filey against loss by fire
to the amount Of his stock Of glass and
merchandise and inserted clause in the policy descb
ing the property of Edward Fey On the It'll Of April
S49 the whole of the property described and Insured in
the policy destroyed by fire. The defendants paid Wm
Fey So COS 95 but it alleged that they have failed to
pay the $500 to Fey for which this action Is brought
The defence set simply that Edward Filley
effected insurance with the company that they did
agree to include his property in the policy Of william
Fiey; ard that they have duly paid the latter the
amount for which he was insured The Judge, in his
charge TO the stated the nature Of the action which
for about $500 for losses Of fixtures and iron safe
in store in Pearl street which formerly belonged
Mr. Morton and which subsequently kept by william
and Edward Flley, after Mr.. Morton's death william
Filley the Of the stock amounting to about
s. 0VO and Edward Fey the of articles the
value of which is in dispute Edward Finley was perfect
y we'll know to the officers of the company
VIM Filley not Edward sey went tothe Office of the
defendants in September 1913 and told them he wanted
to insure for his brother William, for 5000 1t ap
pears the rate of insurance was not then de-
cided upon and the officer of the insurance company
afterwards 90 to th" store in order to ennbe them
settle the rate Of premium; bis attention called
those articles Of fixture but what the whole conversation
was is matter of dispute. Both William and Edward
Finley state that it was distinctly announced to the ofser
of the company that it the property Of Mr. Morton
Mr. Edward Fey goes to the insurance Office subsequent
w. and the record made at the time reachng the
door he recolected about the fixtures he returned and
the policy made out by the officer of the company
rate for $500 About month after this-for usual in
thoee the company do not hurry themselves-the
collector TO get the premium and deliver the policy
He admits he got the whole premium and that he gave
receipt 81 % the premium the $500 that very
time Mr. Edward Fley tells the collector that he wanted
separate receipt fol the 81 25 and accordingly the off,
Ger Of the company gives such receipt After this trans
action carried essentially by Mr. Edward Finley,
whom they refuse to recognise they insure him aud
Of the general rules laws of insurance companies
is that they shall know the character of the person
whom they INSURE and when they insured Mr.. Edward
Fiey it is clear they must have known him. As
CARDS the law of this the jury take 1t upon
two views One il, that the right would have been in
in the cote now. which declares that the suit must be
brought in the OF the party In interest The
ties here insist the right Of contract made and is
a coptract-a binding contract-apd as to any fraud
that is davowed 1t is said 1t Il true that the defen-
dants liable TO be called on by two different persons
but they could have paid william Filey. and that would
have been fair and legitimate without notice the
brother Edward As to the damages the of
the Court that this contract might be construed
to contain not only iron safe but both them
1t is competent for thm claim both not With.
standing the omission OF the s. at the end of the word
in part of the policy 1t the intent and under
staEdiDg OF the parties The plaintiff is entitled the
asets which belonged to the estate before he became
ministiator. The only questions then that 20
jury matter Of fact whether the notice ri
that the property belonged Peter Morton and whether
there understanding between them that this pro-
perty was to be insured for $780,
Verdict fer plaintiff for amount claimed with interest