Case Name: Beadle vs. The Chenango County Mutual Insurance Company
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1842-07
Citations: 3 Hill & Den. 161
Docket Number: 
Parties: Beadle vs. The Chenango County Mutual Insurance Company.
Judges: 
Reporter: Hill's Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 161–162

Head Matter:
Beadle vs. The Chenango County Mutual Insurance Company.
The parties to a policy of insurance may insert in it what conditions they please, provided there he nolhing in them contrary to the criminal law, or public policy.
(Accordingly, where a fire policy issued by an incorporated mutual insurance company was conditioned that, if the insured refused or neglected to pay any assess, ment duly made by the company upon his premium note, for thirty days after notice thereof, the policy should be void: Held, a valid condition, and that a violation of it was a good defence to an action on the policy.
Otherwise, as to terms of forfeiture not mutually agreed to, but sought to be imposed by the company in the form of a by-law. Semble.
Demurrer to plea. Tracy Beadle brought an action of assumpsit against The Chenango County Mutual Insurance Company upon a policy of insurance executed by the latter against fire, for five years, bearing date November 30th, 1838. The declaration set out those parts of the policy upon which the plaintiff’s claim was based, and averred a loss by fire on the 17th of June, 1841. The defendants pleaded that one of the conditions of the said policy was, that should an assessment be made upon the premium note of the said Beadle, pursuant to the charter of the company, (Sess. Laws of 1836, p. 42, in connection with id. 314,) and he neglected or refused to pay such assessment within thirty days after notice thereof, the policy was thenceforth to be null and void ; that the company, on the 9th of January, 1841, caused an assessment of ten per cent, to be made upon the premium notes of its members, including said Beadle; and that he, though duly notified of such assessment, &c., refused to pay the same for more than thirty days after such notice, and still refuses, &c.
The plaintiff demurred, assigning for cause that the condition of insurance alleged in the plea was unreasonable and arbitrary, unauthorized by the act incorporating the company, and not within the power of the company to enforce. The defendants joined in demurrer.
B. D. Noxon,
for the plaintiff, insisted that the demurrer was well taken for the reason assigned therein. He commented on the charter of the company, (Sess. Laws 1836, p. 44, §§ 7—10,) citing also, The Matter of the Long Island Rail Road Company, (19 Wendell, 37.)
JY. Hill, Jun. for the defendants.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The parties may insert what conditions they please in a policy, provided there be nothing in them contrary to the criminal law, or public policy. This is constantly done in marine policies, and the principle which upholds it there extends to all other policies. The Matter of the Long Island Rail Road Company, (19 Wendell, 37,) has no application. The terms of forfeiture were there imposed by the company. Here the condition was inserted by mutual consent.
Judgment for the defendants.