Huckman v Fernie, Managing Director of the British Commercial Insurance Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1838 |
| Date | 01 January 1838 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 150 E.R. 1245
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 1 H. & H. 149; 7 L. J. Ex. 163; 2 Jur. 444. Followed, Geach v. Ingall, 1845, 14 M. & W. 95. Corrected, Booth v. Millus, 1816, 15 M. & W. 669; 4 D. & L. 52. And See Edwards v. Mattews, 1847, 4 D. & L. 721; Brandford v. Freeman, 1850, 5 Ex. 724.
[505] huckman i). fernle, Managing Director of the British Commercial Insurance Company. Exch. of Pleas. 18M8.-In an action on a policy of insurance effected by the plaintiff on the life of his wife, the declaration averred that the plaintiff had made statements, (inter alia), that the wife was not afflicted with any disorder which tended to shorten life, and that she had led, and continued to lead, a temperate life. The defendant pleaded, that before the making of the policy, and on divers times after that clay, the wife had been and was afflicted with certain disorders, maladies, or diseases, to wit, delirium tremens and erysipelatous inflammation of the legs, all which the plaintiff before and at the time of the making of the policy well knew. It appeared that at the time the policy was effected, the wife had been examined at the insurance office, and answered several questions put to her, but did not apprise the company of her having been affected with those complaints. The jury found that the plaintiff had not any knowledge of her having had these disorders :-Held, that upon the issue raised on these pleadings, the wife not being the general agent of the husband to effect the policy, but only sent to answer particular questions, her knowledge was not in this respect the knowledge of the husband.-The wife had for several years been attended by A. B. up to her marriage with the plaintiff, and nearly to the time when the policy was effected. After her marriage, C. D., the medical attendant of her husband's family, had, on one or two occasions, when called in to the other members of the family, prescribed for her for a cold or some trifling matter. In answer to the question put to her at the office, "who is your usual medical attendant?" she replied, C. 1). :-Held, that the learned Judge ought not to have left it to the jury, on this evidence, to say which of the two was her usual ; medical attendant, but whether C. D. could bo called her usual medical attendant at all.-Where, upon a question whether the plaintiff or defendant has a right to begin, the Judge at nisi prius has decided clearly and manifestly wrong, the Court will grant a new trial. [S. C. 1 H. & H. 149; 7 L. J. Ex. 163; 2 Jur. 444. Followed, 6-Wt v. [ngidl, 1845, 14 M. & W". 95. Corrected, Booth v. Millux, 18 1C, 15 M. & W. (i(!9 ; 4 D. & L. 52. And see Edwards v. Mattltewn, 1847, 4 D. & L. 721; Urandfonl v. Freeman, 1850, 5 Ex. 734. | Assumpsit on a policy of insurance. The declaration stated that the plaintiff, on the 2,'lrd of October, 183.'), caused to be made a certain policy of insurance, whereby, after reciting that the plaintiff, having an interest in the life of Elizabeth Huukman his wife, was desirous of making an insurance with the company, in the sum of .'1001. upon the life of the said Elizabeth Huckman, and had declared that she did not exceed the age of fifty-one years on the 28th of March then last; that she had had the small pox or cow pox, had not had the gout, had not had a spitting of blood, and was not afflicted with any disorder which tended to shorten life, and that she had led and continued to lead a temperate life. The declaration then went on to state the making of the policy, which contained a proviso, amongst other things, that if any 1246 HUCKMAN V. FERNIE 3M.&W.B06. thing stated by the plaintiff, either iu the declaration or attestation thereinbefore mentioned to have been made by him, should not be true, the policy should be null aipd void, and the monies paid on account of the insurance should be forfeited. The declaration then alleged mutual promises, arid averred performance by the plaintiff' of a^l things in the policy on his behalf to be performed-that he was interested in his [906] wife's life to the amount of the monies insured thereon-and that the declaration oi| attestation in the policy mentioned, and so by him made, was in all respects true. It) then proceeded, in the usual form, to allege the death of Mrs. Huckman, the payment of the I premiums, &c. &c. Fleas-First, that the declaration or attestation in tl e policy mentioned was not true, because at the time the same was made the said E! izabeth Huckman was afflicted with a disorder which tended to shorten life. Secondly, that the said declaration or attestation in the said policy mentioned, and so made by the plaintiff as therein stated, was not true, because at the time the same was made as aforesaid the said Elizabeth Huckman had not led, nor did she continue ta lead, a temperate life. Thirdly, that before the making of the policy of insurance in the said first count mentioned, to wit, on the 1st of January, 1828, and on divers times after that day, the said E. Huckman, deceased, had been and was afflicted with certain disorders, maladies, or diseases, to wit, delirium tremens, and erysipelatous imflammatioa of the legs, and her legs had been and were ulcerated, and she had been arid was, on various occasions, and from time to time, as well long before as shortly before the making of the said policy, seriously ill, all which the plaintiff before and at the time of the making of the said policy well knew, which were facts material and nqcessary to be known to the said company before the making of the said policy, to enable them rightly and adequately to estimate the risk to be by them incurred in the event of their making the said policy of assurance, and for their due security in that behalf; and the defendant further says, that the said plaintiff, before and at the time of making the said policy, wholly neglected and omitted to apprise and inform the said company of the said last mentioned several facts, and the same were not, nor was either of them, at any time before the making of the said policy of insurance, in any manner communicated to the [507] said company, but the said company were, at the time of the making of the said policy, wholly ignorant of the same, and by reason of the said premises, and of the non-communication of the said last mentioned facts by the plaintiff to the said company as aforesaid, the said policy was and is wholly null and void-Verification. The fourth plea alleged, in the same manner, that Mrs. Huckman had been in the habit of taking spirits in excessive quantities ; and the fifth plea stated that the company were induced to enter into the policy, and that the policy was effected, by fraud and covin. The defendant pleaded sixthly, that before the granting of the insurance and making of the policy, to wit, on &c., the said company caused to be delivered to the plaintiff, arid he received from them, a certain document or instrument in writing, containing and requiring divers questions to be answered...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wheelton and Others v Brydges Hardisty and Others
...that this opinion did not [250] become material. And the same remark applies to Swete v. Fairlie (6 Car. & P. 1). In Huckman v. Fernie (3 M. & W. 505, 518), in delivering the judgment of the Court, Lord Abinger says : "The wife" (whose life had been insured) "was not the agent of the husban......
-
Mercer against Whall
...at Nisi Prius as to the right to begin ; Burrell v. Nicholson (1 M. & Rob. 304), Bird v. Higginson (2 A. & E. 160). In Huckman \. Fernie (3 M. & W. 505), this doctrine seems to have been questioned but the Judge's ruling on the trial was supported. At all events there is no authority for gr......
-
Doe on the demise of the Trustees of the Schools and Almshouses of the City of Worcester v Rowlands
...(a)1 The case of Ftsher v Joyce, referred to in the case of Osbatn v. Thompson, ante, p. 337. (a)2 In the case of Huckman v Furme, 3 M & W , 505, Lord Abmger and Baron Alcjerson intimated that the Court might grant a new trial, if the Judge at the trial had allowed a= party to begin who had......
-
R v Holboyd
...514 , Huckman v. Ferme, 3 M & W. 515), the Courts appear now disposed to restrict the doctrine in the way suggested In Hucktnan v. Per me (3 M & W 505), indeed, the point was decided upon the form of the plea, which was held to import that the assured had personal knowledge of the fact (see......