AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

GEORGE B. RAY et al., Respondents, v. CANTON CO-OPERATIVE FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Appellants.

Per Curiam.

Since the policy in suit was at the times in question in the exclusive possession of the plaintiffs, the defendant companies were not bound by the promise of any of their agents that consent to an assignment thereof to the plaintiffs would be endorsed thereon. ( Greentaner v. Connecticut Fire Ins. Co., 228 N.Y. 388; Truglio v. Zurich General Acc. L. Ins. Co., 247 N.Y. 423. See Mapu v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 244 App. Div. 268.) No estoppel against the defendant companies arose from the circumstance that plaintiffs had at their request submitted estimates of the amount of the loss. ( Draper v. Oswego County Fire Relief Assn., 190 N.Y. 12.)

The judgments should be reversed and the complaint dismissed, with costs in all courts.

LEHMAN, Ch. J., LOUGHRAN, FINCH, RIPPEY, LEWIS, CONWAY and DESMOND, JJ., concur.

Judgments reversed, etc.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

RAY v. CANTON CO-OPERATIVE FIRE INS. CO
(Jul 29, 1941)