Case Name: Martin v. Equitable Acc. Ass'n of Binghamton
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-02
Citations: 9 N.Y.S. 16
Docket Number: 
Parties: Martin v. Equitable Acc. Ass’n of Binghamton.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 9
Pages: 16–19

Head Matter:
Martin v. Equitable Acc. Ass’n of Binghamton.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department.
February, 1890.)
Mutual Benefit Insurance—Actions at Law.
There can be no recovery in an action at law on an accident insurance certificate-providing for the payment of the amount to be collected by an assessment of all the* members at the time of the accident, not exceeding SI,000, where there is neither allegation nor proof of the amount which would have been realized on an assessment, or that an assessment would have yielded any amount.
Appeal from circuit court, Broome county.
Action by Fannie Martin against the Equitable Accident Association of Binghamton, IT. Y., on a certificate of membership issued by the defendant, which was in the nature of a policy of insurance against accident. It was issued to John H. Martin, and provided that, in case of his death, the defendant should pay the plaintiff the principal sum, not exceeding $1,000, realized upon an assessment made in accordance with the provisions of section 1 of article 4 of the defendant’s by-laws, which provides that the defendant shall pay the person named in the application “the amount collected from all the members of the association at the time of accident, upon an assessment of one dollar upon each half-rate member, and, in addition, in case of a full-rate certificate, two dollars, and of a half-rate certificate, one dollar, upon each full-rate member.” On the trial, no proof was given showing, or tending to show, what amount would have been realized if the defendant had made the assessment provided for by its certificate. Indeed, there was neither allegation nor proof that any sum whatever would have been realized from an assessment by the defendant according to the provisions of its policy. At the close of the evidence the defendant moved for a nonsuit on the ground that the plaintiff could not maintain this form of action on the policy, and also on the ground that the plaintiff had not “made out a cause of action.” This motion was denied, and the defendant accepted. The case was then submitted to the jury, and it rendered a verdict for the plaintiff for $1,044.66. A motion was thereupon made by the defendant, on the minutes of the trial judge, to set aside the verdict, and for a new trial upon the exceptions, and because the verdict was contrary to the evidence, and contrary to law. This motion was also denied. The defendant appeals from the judgment entered on such verdict, and also from the order denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial.
Argued before Hardin, P. J., and Martin and Merwin, JJ.
David Murray, for appellant. Mead, Stranahan & Spencer, for respondent.

Opinion:
Martin, J.
The only question we deem it necessary to consider is whether the recovery in this action can be upheld when there was neither allegation nor proof that the plaintiff sustained any damage because of the defendant's failure to perform its contract. The defendant's contract was that it would pay the amount realized from an assessment of its members, not exceeding $1,000. Thus the measure of the defendant's liability was the sum which would have been realized from such an assessment, if made, unless it exceeded such limitation. With no allegation or proof of the amount which would have been realized upon such an assessment, or that any amount would have been realized, it is difficult to see how the verdict in this case can be sustained. While it has been held in a number of cases that an action at law can be maintained upon such a contract, still the same cases are to the effect that in such an action, before the plaintiff can recover, he must prove facts sufficient to enable the jury to compute the amount due thereon. O'Brien v. Society, 4 N. Y. Supp. 275, affirmed 22 N. E. Rep. 954, 46 Hun, 426; Freeman v. Society, 42 Hun, 253; Fulmer v. Association, 12 N. Y. St. Rep. 347; Hankinson v. Page, 12 Civ. Proc. R. 279; Peck v. Association, 5 N. Y. Supp. 215; Fitzgerald v. Association, Id. 837; Darrow v. Society, 22 N. E. Rep. 1093. As there was no such proof in this case, we think the verdict was not sustained by the evidence, and that the court erred in denying the defendant's motion for a new trial. Judgment and order reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.
Merwin, J., concurs.