Doe D. Pitt v Laming, Widow
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 December 1814 |
| Date | 07 December 1814 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 171 E.R. 24
KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
Explained, Greenslade v. Tapscoll, 1834, 1 C M. & R. 55 Referred to, In re Universal Non-Tariff Fire Insurance Co: Forbes & Co's Claim, 1875, L. R. 19 Eq. 485; Phillips v. Henson, 1877, 3 C. P. D. 26.
Adjourned Sittings at Guildhall. Wednesday, Dec. 7, 1814. doe d. pitt v. laming, widow. (Covenant in a lease to insure and keep insured a specified sum of money upon the premises. The lessee effects such an insurance, the policy containing a memorandum, that in ease of the death of the assured, the policy might be continued to his personal representative, provided an indorsement to that effect was made upon it within three months after his death. The lessee dies, and an indorsement continuing the policy to his personal representative was made after the expiration of three months from the time of his decease Held, that under these circumstances there was no breach of the covenant to keep the premises insured A coffee-house is not an inn, within the meaning of a policy of insurance against fire, enumerating the trade of an innkeeper, with others, as double hazardous Letting lodgings is not a breach of a covenant in a lease not to underlet any part of the premises without the licence of the lessor ) [Explained, Greenslade v. Tapscott, 1834, 1C M. & R 55 Referred to, In re Universal Non-Tariff Fire Insurance Co : Forbes & Co '. ? Clatm, 1875, L. R. 19 Eq. 485 ; PMhps v. Benson, 1877, 3 C. P. D. 26.] Ejectment on the forfeiture of a lease, dated the 21st of July 1812, whereby the lessor of the plaintiff demised [74] to Wilham Laming, since deceased, the premises in question, known by the name of Grigsby's Coffee-house, in Threadneedle-street. The first covenant alleged to have been broken was, " that the lessee, his executors, administrators, and assigns, should and would from time to time, and at all times during the continuance of the term thereby granted, insure and keep insured, or cause and procure to be kept insured, the sum of 800 at the least, in some sufficient insurance-office, within the cities of London or Westminster, upon the said demised premises." In point of fact, William Laming, the lessee, in his lifetime, effected an insurance on the premises for 1200, from the 29th of September 1813 to the 29th of September 1814. The policy, after reciting the contract and payment of the premium and duty for the first year, declared, " That from the date...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kelly v Cornhill Insurance Company Ltd
...p. 661; MacGillivray on Insurance Law, (5th ed.) vol. ii, pp. 750–782, paras. 1555–1626, and p. 945, para. 1945; Pitt v. LamingENR, (1814) 4 Camp. 73, Lord Ellenborough, C.J., at pp. 75–76; Welford and Otter-Barry on Fire Insurance, (4th ed.) p. 239; Welford on Accident Insurance, (2nd ed.)......
-
Shukram v New India Assurance Company Ltd
......in Doe d Pitt v. Laming (1814) 4 Camp. 73 at p. 75. . 35 Now the company, for the ......
-
Booth v M'Manus
...4 Ell. & Bl. 347. Westmeath v. Hogg 3 Ir. Law Rep. 27. Dease v. O'Reilly 8 Ir. Law Rep. 52. Mulligan v. Adams Ibid, 132. Pitt v. LamingENR 4 Camp. 73. Pitt v. Hogg 4 Dowl. & Ry. 226. Greenslade v. TapscottENR 1 Cr., M. & R. 55. Crosby v. WadsworthENR 6 East, 602. Parker v. StanilandENR 11 E......
-
Lord Westmeath v Hogg
...358. Doe d. Dingley v. SalesENR 1 M. & S. 298. Close v. Brady Jon. & Car. 186. Doe d. Hanley v. WoodENR 2 B. & Al. 724. Pitt v. LamingENR 4 Camp. 73. Crusoe v. Bugby 3 Wils. 234. Doe d. Pitt v. HoggHRC 4 D. & R. 226. Greenslade v. TapscottENR 1 C. M. & R. 55. Webb v. Paternoster Palmer Rep.......