Case Name: HENRY M. TRAIN, Appellant, v. THE HOLLAND PURCHASE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1874-06
Citations: 8 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 527
Docket Number: 
Parties: HENRY M. TRAIN, Appellant, v. THE HOLLAND PURCHASE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 8
Pages: 527–528

Head Matter:
HENRY M. TRAIN, Appellant, v. THE HOLLAND PURCHASE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.
Policy of insurance — delivery of, iy agent after loss—Premium not paid—effect of.
Plaintiff applied to defendant’s agents to change his insurance. The agents agreed to obtain what they could, on the return of plaintiff’s policy of insurance in the Andes Insurance Company, and to give plaintiff credit for this amount on insurance in another company, the defendant not being distinctly named as such other company, and neither party having in view the continuance of both policies at the same time.
The Andes company refused to pay the return premium, and the plaintiff was informed of this. He said nothing more about a new insurance, and gave notice of loss to the Andes company. No rate of insurance was agreed upon between the plaintiff and defendant’s agents, nor did plaintiff agree to accept the policy of insurance, which was forwarded to defendant’s agents at their request. After the fire, the policy of insurance was received by the plaintiff, but no premium was paid defendant’s agents. The policy contained the following condition: “If the premium of insurance shall not have been paid such insurance shall be void.” Held, that the proposal to insure, came from the company, by then sending the insurance policy to their agents; that such proposal had never been accepted by plaintiff by a compliance with its terms or conditions, the policy not having been delivered and accepted, and no premium having been paid; that the delivery of the policy to the plaintiff, after the fire had taken place, was unauthorized, and did not create a contract of insurance. Even if it were otherwise, the premium of insurance not having been paid, the insurance was void, according to the terms of the policy.
Appeal from a judgment at the Circuit, dismissing plaintiff’s complaint.
At the close of the testimony, the defendant moved for a dismissal of the complaint, and the motion was granted. From the judgment entered, the plaintiff appealed.
J. A. Vance, for the appellant.
Q-eorge Bowen, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Opinion by Miller, P. J.
Present—Miller, P. J., and Boardman, J.
Judgment affirmed.