Worsley v Wood and Others, Assignees of Lockyer and Bream, Bankrupts; in Error
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 June 1796 |
| Date | 07 June 1796 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 101 E.R. 785
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
worsley against wood and others, Assignees of Lockyer and Bream, Bankrupts ; in Error. Tuesday, June 7th, 1796. If a policy of insurance refer to certain printed proposals, the proposals will be considered as part of the policy.-By the proposals of the Phoenix Company it is stipulated that " persons insured shall give notice of the loss forthwith; deliver in an account, and procure a certificate of the minister churchwardens and some reputable householders of the parish, importing that they knew* the character,, &e. of the assured, and believe that he really sustained the loss awd without fraud :" held that the procuring of such a certificate was a condition precedent to the right of the assured to recover, and -(a) 11 Mod, 129'. Salk 238. " 0) ,S'alk. 531. . . (c) Dougl. 709, oct. edit. 786 WORSLEY V. "WOOD 6T.R.711. that it was immaterial that the minister, &c. wrongfully refused to sign the certificate. [3 B. & P. 537. 2 N. E. 408.] [S. C. 2 H. Bl. 574. Discussed, London Gfwrantie Company v. Fearnley, 1880, 5 App. Gas. 916.] . ' - This was an action of covenant brought in the Court of Common Pleas. The declaration stated that by a policy of insurance made before Lockyer and Bream became bankrupts, namely, on the 9th of March 1792, it was witnessed that Lockyer and Bream had paid 111. 16s. to the Phoenix Company, and had agreed to pay to-them, at their office, the sum of 111. 16s. on the 25th of March 1793, and the like sum yearly on the said day during the continuance of the policy for insurance from loss or damage by fire, not exceeding the [711] sum of 70001. That Worsley covenanted with L. and B. that so long as the assured should pay the above premium, the capital stock and funds to the Phoenix Company should be liable to pay to the assured any loss that the assured should suffer by fire on the property therein mentioned, not exceeding 70001., according to the tenor of the printed proposals delivered with the policy. That in the printed proposals referred to by the policy it is declared that the company would not be accountable for any loss by fire caused by foreign invasion, civil commotion, &c. and also that all persons assured sustaining any loss by fire should forthwith give notice to the company, and as soon as possible after deliver in as particular an account of their loss as the nature of the case would admit, and make proof of the same by their oath and by their book of accounts or other vouchers as should be reasonably required; and should procure a certificate under the hands of the ministers and churchwardens and of some reputable householders of the parish not concerned in the loss, importing that they were acquainted with the character and circumstances of the person insured, and knew or believed that he by misfortune and without any kind of fraud or evil practice had sustained by such fire the loss and damage therein mentioned ; and in case any difference should arise between the assured and the company touching any loss, such difference should be submitted to the judgment of arbitrators indifferently chosen, whose award should be conclusive, &c.; and when any loss should have been duly proved, the assured should immediately receive satisfaction to the full amount of the same. The declaration then stated that on the 1st of July 1792, a loss happened by fire in the house of L. and B., in which all their books of accounts were destroyed to the amount of 70001. That L. and B. on the same day gave notice of it to the company, and on the same day delivered to the company as particular an account of their loss as the nature of the case admitted, and were then and there also ready and willing and then and there tendered to make proof of the loss by their oath, and to produce such vouchers as could be reasonably required in that behalf; that on the same day they procured and delivered to the said company a certificate under the hands of four reputable householders of the parish, to the effect required in the printed proposals, and applied to E. Embry the minister and H. Hutehins and J. Bellamy the churchwardens of the parish to sign such certificate, but that they without any reasonable or probable cause 712] wrongfully and unjustly refused and have ever since refused to sign it. The declaration then stated that the funds of the company were sufficient to pay this loss, yet the company have not paid it either to the bankrupts or to their assignees; nor have the company submitted the said difference to the judgment of such arbitrators, &c. There was another count, in which it was not averred that the bankrupts either offered to make proof of the loss, or procured a certificate or applied to the minister, &c. for one; and the breach in this count was, that the company had not submitted the said difference to the judgment of such arbitrators, &c. : The defendant pleaded (to the first count) that the bankrupts were not interested in the house or goods, &c. at the time of the loss; on which issue was taken in the replication. 2dly, that the loss was occasioned by the fraud and evil practice of the bankrupts; on which issue was taken, &e. 3dly, that the minister and churchwardens did not refuse wrongfully and injuriously and without any reasonable or probable cause to sign the certificate; on which issue was takef). (To the second count) 1st, that the bankrupts were not interested, &c. on which issue was taken. 2dly, that the loss was occasioned by fraud, &c. (as above;) on which issue was taken. 3dly, that neither the bankrupts or their assignees procured such certificate under the hands 6T.R.713, WORSLEY V. WOOD 787 of the minister and churchwardens and respectable inhabitants, &c. as required in the printed proposals. To the last of these pleas the plaintiffs replied that the bankrupts as soon as possible after the loss, namely, on the 1st July 1792, procured and delivered to the company such certificate as is required in the printed proposals under the hands of four respectable inhabitants, &c. but that the minister and churchwardens wrongfully refused to sign it without any reasonable or probable cause for so doing. The rejoinder stated that the minister and churchwardens did not wrongfully refuse, &c.; on which issue was taken in the sur-rejoinder. The jury found all the issues for the plaintiffs, and gave a verdict for 30001. The'defendant below removed the record (a) into this Court by writ of error, and assigned for error that the declaration, the replication, and the other pleadings of the plaintiffs below were not sufficient in law to maintain the action...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ennia General Insurance Company Ltd Appellant v J. Astaphan & Company (1970) Ltd Respondent [ECSC]
... ... a hurricane" by Waddy Astaphan who, with others, had accompanied him on his inspection tour ... As a result of a clerical error the amount was altered on the 16th January, 1982 ... , and upon the judgments delivered in WORSLEY v. WOOD 101 Eng. R. 785 for the above ... ...
-
Duppa, Executor of Baskerville v Mayo
...estate of inheritance held of the manor, the newly acquired copyhold will go to his heirs ex parte maternA, and not to his heirs general. 6 T. R. 710, Hoe v. Wegg. But if a mortgagee in fee devises all hia lands, tenements, and hereditaments, the mortgaged lands do not pass unless the equit......
-
Saipem SpA v Rafidain Bank
...v Lord CamoysELR (1882) 21 ChD 67. Tollemache, ReELR [1903] 1 Ch 457; [1903] 1 Ch 955 (CA). Worsley v Wood & OrsUNK (1796) 6 Term Rep 710; 101 ER 785. Trusts — Contract — Contract for construction of oil pipeline in Iraq — Machinery for payment involved clearing certificates from Iraqi stat......
-
Shoucair and another (Executors of the Estate of Edward Shoucair t/a S.N. Shoucair, deceased) v American Home Assurance Company and Others
... ... In Worsley v Wood (1795) 6 Term Rep. 710 at 718 , where ... ...