Insurance Co. v. Lyman
Citations
- 82 U.S. 664
Syllabus
<p>A., knowing that bis vessel had been lost on the 8th of January, 1870, but concealing his knowledge of the fact, applied for, on the 15th following, and got a written policy of insurance dated on that-day, on her, “ lost or not lost,” from the 1st of January, 1870, to the 1st of April following. The insurance company, discovering afterwards that when he applied for this policy he knew of the loss, refused to pay. He brought suit, setting out his written policy, but declaring.on it in such a way as was meant to .show that the execution of it was but “ a compliance with .and a formal statement” of an agreement to make the insurance, which he alleged had been entered into between himself and the insurers on the 81st of December, 1869, and before the loss. Held—</p> <p>1. That parol proof was not admissible to show that the contract of. insurance was actually made before the loss occurred, though executed and delivered, and paid for afterward, for that to allow such proof would.be to contradict and vary the terms of the policy in a matter material to the contract.</p> <p>2. That the terms of the contract having been reduced to writing, signed by one party and accepted by-the other at the time the premium of insurance was paid, neither party could abandon that instrument, as of no value in ascertaining what the contract was, and resort to the verbal negotiations which were preliminary to its execution, for that purpose.</p> <p>8. That the fact that the plaintiff went to the insurance office about half- ■ past three o’clock in the afternoon, saw a clerk or person (whom he was not able afterwards to identify) standing at the desk, to whom he applied to have the vessel insured, who told him that “ the secretary had gone home, and that there was no one in the office who could do it, but said he would speak to the secretary when he came in, in the morning, and have it, attended to the first thing,” is not sufficient evidence of a completed contract — an agreement assented
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- writing that “if a lessee covenants to . . . pay a definite rental or royalty, in the event he fails to do so and he is not exonerated therefrom by some other stipulation of the contract, he will generally be held to a strict performance of the covenant”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Miller
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.