Source: https://chestofbooks.com/business/law/Law-Of-Contracts-2/Chapter-XVII-Of-The-Law-Of-Marine-Insurance-Section-I-Of-The-Contract-A-W.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 22:18:49+00:00

Document:
This agreement is generally in writing; and the written instrument is called "a Policy of Insurance." But it need not be in writing, (ac) 2 unless the act of incorporation of the insurers re(a) Ripley v. AEtna Ins. Co. 30 N. Y. 136.
(aa) Hoffman v. AEtna Ins. Co. 82 N. T. 406.
(ab) New York Belting Co. v. Washington Ins. Co. 10 Bosw. 428. See the same principle applied to insurance on a building. New York, etc. v. Hamilton Ins. Co. 10 Bosw. 587.
Ins. Co. 2 Curtis, C. C. 524, affirmed, Commercial Ins. Co. v. Union Ins. Co. 19 How. 818; Baptist Church v. Brooklyn F. Ins. Co. 18 Barb. 60; 10 N. Y. 806; Sanborn v. Fireman's Ins. Co. 16 Gray, 448; Smith v. Odlin, 4 Yeates, 468; Hamilton v. Lycoming Ins. Co. 6 Barr, 889. But see Real Estate ins. Co. v. Roessle, 1 Gray, 336.
1 It was declared in Rodocanachi v. Elliott, L. R. 8 C. P. 649, that a marine policy may cover the risks daring a portion of the transit to be performed overland, provided apt language be employed to express that intention. - A contract of marine insurance is a maritime contract within the admiralty jurisdiction of the United States courts. Insurance Co. v. Dunham, 11 Wall. 1, affirming De Lovio v. Bolt, 2 Gall. 398. - An application for insurance may be drawn with a lead pencil. City Ins. Co. v. Bricker, 91 Penn. St 488.
Formerly insurance was generally effected in this country by individuals subscribing a policy or insurance sheet; but now, * insurance is effected always or nearly so by incor porated companies.
It is also a universal principle of the law of contracts, that there is no contract unless the parties agree together, about the same thing, in the same sense. If therefore an offer is made by either party, there is no contract unless that offer be accepted without any variation of its terms. (f) If, however, certain things in Westchester Ins. Co. v. Earle, 33 Mich. 143, an oral agreement extending the terms of subsisting policy was declared to be valid. See Taylor v. Germania Ins. Co. 2 Dillon, 282; Hartford Ins. Co. 9. Farrish, 73 Ill. 166; Northrop v. Mississippi Valley Ins. Co. 47 Mo. 435; Franklin Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 52 Miss. 441. That outside of the statute of frauds there is no rule of law which prevents written policies from being changed by parol, see Roger Williams Ins. Co. v. Carrington, 43 Mich. 253.
(b) Cockerill v. Cincinnati Int. Co. 16 Ohio, 148; Courtnay v. Miss. Ins. Co. 12 La. 288; Berthond v. Atlantic Ins. Co. 13 La. 580; Flint v. Ohio Ins. Co. 8 Ohio, 601; Spitzer v. St. Marks Ins. Co. 6 Duer, 6.
(c) Loring v. Proctor, 26 Maine, 18; Blanchard v. Waite, 28 id. 51; Woodruff v. Columbus Ins. Co. 6 La. An. 697; Perkins v. Washington Ins. Co. 4 Cowen, 646.
(d) Oliver v. Commercial Ins. Co. 2 Curtis, C. C. 291; Franklin Ins. Co. v.
Hewitt 3 B. Mon. 239; Kelly v. Commonwealth Ins. Co. 10 Bosw. 82; Xenos v. Wickham, Law Rep. 2 H. L. 206.
(dd) West Mass. Ins. Co. v. Duffey, 2 Kansas, 847.
(e) See ante, vol. i. •406-*406.
(f) Routledge v. Grant, 3 Car. & P. 267, 4 Bing. 658; Ocean Ins. Co. v. Carrington, 8 Conn. 867; Eliason v. Henshaw, 4 Wheat. 225; Hutchison v. Bowker, 6 M. & W. 535; Myers v. Keystone Ins. Co. 27 Penn. State, 268.
1 Ins. Co. v. Colt, 20 Wall. 560; Hening v. United States Ins. Co. 2 Dillon, 26.
2 Or it may be entered by an agent in his "binding book," so called, Putnam v. Home Ins. Co. 123 Mass. 324.
3 Where the agreement for insurance is complete, a policy must issue although a loss has meanwhile occurred. Ins. Co. v. Colt. 20 Wall. 560; Excelsior Ins. Co. v. Royal Ins. Co. 55 N. T. 343; Marx v. National Ins. Co. 25 La. An. 39; Baldwin v. Chouteau Ins. Co. 56 Mo. 151.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.