42 Barb. 457 | N.Y. Sup. Ct. | 1864
By the Gourt,
The conditions annexed to the policy of insurance, and, by its terms, forming a part thereof, require that applications for insurance “ shall be made according to the printed forms of the company,”
The court also properly overruled the plaintiff’s offer to show that at the time of the application he told the defendant’s agent that Miss Chapin did not own the building, but that he, the plaintiff, did, and had purchased it before he took the contract for the land. It was an offer to contradict by paroi the clear and explicit statement in the written application, respecting the plaintiff’s title. (Jennings v. The Chenango County Mutual Insurance Co., 2 Denio, 75, and cases cited by Jewett, J.)
The only remaining question is whether at the time of the fire, the plaintiff had an insurable interest in the building, under the contract with Miss Chapin. The contract provided that the plaintiff was to pay, for the lot, the sum of #175, in ten equal annual payments, with interest to be computed from 1st March, 1860, and that on such payments being made, in full,, to the vendor, she was to execute a deed. The vendee was to have immediate possession of the premises. The contract further provided that if the vendee should fail to perform the contract, or any part thereof, the vendor, immediately after such failure, should have the right to declare the same void, and retain whatever had been paid thereon, and all improvements that had been made on the premises, and might consider and treat the vendee as her tenant holding over without permission, and might take immediate possession of the premises and remove the vendee therefrom. It was proved that in September, 1861, the plaintiff having paid nothing, the vendor notified him to Surrender possession of the house and lot, and that in Octo
As the interest of the plaintiff, in the premises, was thus terminated, independently of the legal proceedings to dispossess him, it is unnecessary to inquire whether those proceedings were valid.
Some other questions, of less importance, are raised by the exceptions in the case, but it seems to me obvious that they were correctly decided.
The defendant is entitled to judgment on the verdict.
Ordered accordingly.
J. O. Smith, Welles and JS. Darwin Smith, Justices.] .