Simpson v Scottish Union Insurance Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 March 1863 |
| Date | 09 March 1863 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 71 E.R. 270
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
S. C. 32 L. J. Ch. 329; 9 Jur. (N. S.) 711; 8 L. T. 112; 11 W. R. 459; 1 N. R. 537. See Castellain v. Preston, 1883, 11 Q. B. D. 400.
Insurance. Rebuilding (14 Geo. 3, c. 78, s. 83). Mandamus.
[618] simpson v. scottish union insurance company. March 6, 9, 1863. [S. C. 32 L. J. Ch. 329; 9 Jur. (N. S.) 711; 8 L. T. 112 ; 11 W. R. 459; 1 N. R. 537. See Castellain v. Preston, 1883, 11 Q. B. D. 400.] Insurance. Rebuilding (14 Geo. 3, c. 78, s. 83). Mandamus. In order to entitle an owner to the benefit of the 83d section of the 14 Geo. 3, c. 78r he must make a distinct request to the insurance office to apply the policy money in rebuilding before they have settled with the tenant insuring; and in no case is the owner entitled to rebuild himself and claim the policy money under the said section. Qucere, whether the 83d section is general or confined to houses within the bills of mortality. Where a policy makes the assets of a company liable, excluding personal liability : 1H. &M. 619. SIMPSON V. SCOTTISH UNION INSURANCE COMPANY 271 Semble, that tbis does not give jurisdiction to a Court of Equity to interfere in the first instance to enforce the 83d section of the said statute, and that the proper course is first to apply for a mandamus. This case came on upon demurrer. The material statements of the bill were as follows:- The Plaintiff was the owner in fee of a house, No. 5 Simpson's Terrace, in the North Woolwich Road, in the county of Essex, which he had insured in the Koyal Exchange for £300, and had a term of 999 years in the adjoining house, No. 4. In January 1861 the Plaintiff let the house No. 5 to William and Jane Miller aa yearly tenants at a rent of £80. This house was burnt down in May 1861, and the £300 insurance money was received, and with other monies was applied by the Plaintiff in rebuilding the house. During the rebuilding the Plaintiff agreed with the Millers that they should take both No. 4 and No. 5, at an aggregate rent of £115 from September 1861, and should insure them for the sum of £500. William and Jane Miller accordingly insured the two houses in their, or one of their, names for £200 and £300 respectively in the Scottish Union Company, which had an [619] office in the City of London, and informed the Plaintiff of the fact. The policy provided that the sums insured should be a charge upon the funds of the company only, and excluded the personal liability of the shareholders. On December 10th, 1861, the two houses were burnt down, and the Plaintiff on December 12th had an interview with the secretary of the Defendants' company, and ascertained the existence of the insurance for £500. The secretary intimated that he considered the case a suspicious one; and the Plaintiff stated that he claimed to be entitled as owner or lessor to the benefit of the policy, and to have the amount laid out towards rebuilding the houses; and that he relied upon the office paying nothing to the tenant; to which the secretary assented. On December 31st, 1861, the Plaintiff sent the following notice to the secretary of the company :- " Sir,-As the owner of the bouses Noa. 4 and 5 Simpson's Terrace, North Woolwich Road, destroyed by fire on the 10th inst., insured in your office by Mrs. Jane Miller or William Miller, or both, for £200 and £300, I hereby give you notice not to pay any money in respect of that policy to either of them or anyone on their behalf, believing myself to be entitled to the benefit of that insurance, having sustained a heavy loss by the burning of these premises. " D. C. simpson." The notice was duly received ; and, after some further communication, the secretary, in the month of January 1863, informed the Plaintiff that they had settled with the tenant, and did not intend to pay him (the Plaintiff) any money. Before this interview, and after the receipt of the notice, and after full notice of the claims by the Plaintiff, the company concluded an arrangement with the Millers, £620] by paying them a sum insured on their stock-in-trade by a separate policy; in consideration whereof the Millers abandoned, or professed to abandon, all their claims upon the policy for £500 upon the two houses ; and delivered up this policy, in which they had no interest, to the company, who alleged that it had been cancelled and destroyed. The sum of £500 was far less than the value of the two houses, and the Plaintiff had also effected insurances in other offices on No. 4 for £200 and on No. 5 for £400, which sums were paid to him. The Plaintiff, on hearing that the company had settled with his tenant, and obtained possession of the policy, proceeded to rebuild the houses in the same style, and of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re King, decd
...interest alone which is covered; he alone is entitled to the policy moneys, and the landlord has no claim upon them see Simpson v. Scottish Union Insurance Co. (1863) 1 H. & M., 618, where Sir Hugh Cairns, in the course of his successful argument put the law most neatly "The insurance was i......
- Royal Insurance Company Ltd v Mylius
-
Andrews and Others v The Patriotic Assurance Company of Ireland
...L. R. 10 Ch. App. 386. Edwards v. West 7 Ch. Div. 858. Reyner v. Preston 18 Ch. Div. 1. Simpson v. Scottish Union Insurance CompanyENR 1 Hem & M. 618. Clark v. Glasgow Assurance Company 1 Mac. H. L. 668. Bullock v. DommittENR 6 T. R. 650 Digby v. AtkinsonENR 4 Camp. 275. Capel v. ButlerENR ......