Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1878

Fitchburg Savings Bank v. Amazon Insurance

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Decided October 7, 1878 · Gray

125 Mass. 431; 1878 Mass. LEXIS 95

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision.

Universal Indemnity Ins. v. North Shore Delivery Co. (7th Cir. 1938)
American Mutual Liability Insurance v. Condon (Mass. 1932)
Girard Et Ux. v. Vt. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (Vt. 1931)
Northwestern Nat. Ins. v. McFarlane (9th Cir. 1931)
Alton v. American Insurance Co. of Newark (Ill. App. Ct. 1931)
Butler v. Security Insurance Co. of New Haven (Ill. App. Ct. 1927)
Parsons, Rich & Co. v. Lane (Minn. 1906)
Glens Falls Insurance Co. v. Michael (Ind. 1905)
Smith v. Union Insurance Co., Etc. (R.I. 1903)
Delaware Ins. v. Greer (8th Cir. 1903)
Northwestern Masonic Aid Ass'n v. Bodurtha (Ind. Ct. App. 1899)
Crikelair v. Citizens' Insurance (Ill. 1897)
Palmer Savings Bank v. Insurance Co. of North America (Mass. 1896)
Chandos v. American Fire Insurance (Wis. 1893)
Sias v. Roger Williams Ins. (United States Circuit Courts 1880)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Gray, C. J.

The policy in suit is on the interest of Coolidge 011I3, and the plaintiff is merely the payee of the policy, and not fas in the case of Foster v. Equitable Ins. Co. 2 Gray, 216, on *435which the plaintiff relies,) the assignee thereof in such form as to constitute a new contract between the assignee and the insurer by which the assignee becomes the assured. Coolidge being the only party insured, and his interest being subject to a mortgage to Kendall, which was not stated in the policy, the policy, by virtue of the provision upon its face, is void, and neither Coolidge nor the plaintiff can maintain an action thereon. Franklin Savings Institution v. Central Ins. Co. 119 Mass. 240. Smith v. Union Ins. Co. 120 Mass. 90.

The paroi evidence introduced was incompetent in law to vary the contract between the parties, and did not in fact tend to show any fraud, or that the defendant’s agent knew of the mortgage to Kendall, or undertook to insure any interest but that of Coolidge. Exceptions sustained.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.