Williamsburg City Fire Insurance v. Frothingham

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Williamsburg City Fire Insurance v. Frothingham, 122 Mass. 391 (Mass. 1877)
1877 Mass. LEXIS 140
Gray

Williamsburg City Fire Insurance v. Frothingham

Opinion of the Court

Gray, C. J.

The objection that the plaintiff was not a corporation was open to the defendant upon the pleadings. Mosler v. Potter, 121 Mass. 89. But the bond sued on and produced by the plaintiff, running to “ the Williamsburg City Fire Insurance Company of Brooklyn, Few York,” audits “ successors and assigns,” was sufficient primd facie evidence of the incorporation of the plaintiff. Williams v. Cheney, 3 Gray. 215. Topping v. Bickford, 4 Allen, 120. Conard v. Atlantic Ins. Co. 1 Pet. 386, 450. And, one condition of the bond being that the principal should keep true and correct books of account, the book kept by him, containing entries of the business of the company only, was competent evidence, against him and his sureties, of the amount of premiums collected by him. Whitnash v. George, 8 B. & C. 556; S. C. 3 Man. & Ry. 42. United States v. Gaussen, 19 Wall. 198. Exceptions overruled.

Reference

Full Case Name
Williamsburg City Fire Insurance Company v. Charles H. Frothingham & others
Cited By
10 cases
Status
Published