Pettengill v. Hinks
Pettengill v. Hinks
Opinion of the Court
It is conceded by the plaintiff, that after the occurrence of the injury by fire to the insured property, no such notice as is made requisite by the provisions of the policies to render them liable for the-loss was ever given to either of the corporations who are summoned as trustees; and that they are therefore entitled to be discharged, unless by the acts and proceedings of their officers their right to such notice was virtually waived. Such provisions respecting the notification of a loss were undoubtedly for the benefit of the insurers, who could, of course, if they should see fit to do so, dispense with its being given. And they may waive it in express terms, or it may be assumed as a fact if it is a result by necessary implication from their acts or the acts and conduct of their officers. Clark v. New England Mutual Fire Ins. Co. 6 Cush. 342. Underhill v. Agawam Mutual Fire Ins. Co. 6 Cush. 440. But the difficulty with the plaintiff’s case is that there has been no waiver; and no transactions from which, in connection with the proofs by which they are surrounded, a fact of that kind can legitimately be
Trustees discharged.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Samuel M. Pettengill v. Edward W. Hinks & another & Trustees
- Status
- Published