Green v. . Homestead Fire Insurance Co.
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision.
- Holloway v. Allen County Mutual Relief Ass'n (Ohio Ct. App. 1937)
- Continental Insurance v. Bair (Ind. Ct. App. 1917)
- Fouts v. Millikan (Ind. Ct. App. 1903)
- Tiemann v. Citizens' Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1902)
- Farmers & Merchants Insurance v. Newman (Neb. 1899)
- Wood v. . American Fire Ins. Co. (N.Y. 1896)
- Wood v. American Fire Insurance Co. of Philadelphia (New York Supreme Court 1894)
- Lodge v. Capital Insurance (Iowa 1894)
- Walradt v. Phœnix Insurance Co. of Hartford (N.Y. 1893)
- Small v. Westchester Fire Ins. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana 1892)
- Peoples' Mutual Fire Ins. v. Bowersox (Williams Circuit Court 1891)
- Peoples' Mutual Fire Insurance v. Bowersox (Ohio Circuit Courts 1891)
- Nassauer v. Susquehanna Mutual Fire Ins. (Pa. 1885)
- Seybert's Administrators v. Pennsylvania Mutual Fire Insurance (Pa. 1883)
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
The notice tiled in pursuance of the mechanic’s lien law clearly did not effect any change of interest in the property insured.
The only other question presented on this appeal is whether the filing of the notice of lien created an incumbrance in violation of a condition of the policy. The condition alleged to have been violated was that the company should not be liable for loss if, without written consent, on the policy, the property should become incumbered in any way. The policy was issued on the 4th of September, 1876. The notice of lien was filed on the 19th of- September, 1876. The fire occurred October 14, 1876. It is not claimed that the lien was filed by the procurement of the assured. Assuming that it was an incumbrance upon the property, we do not think it was such an incumbrance as was contemplated by the condition; that the condition applied only to incumbrances created by or with the assent of the assured, and to the creation of which he might apply for the consent of the company, and that the true meaning of the condition was that the assured should not incumber the property without first obtaining the written consent of the company.
We have thus construed similar conditions in policies in other cases. (Baley v. Homestead Fire Ins. Co., 80 N. Y. 21.)
The judgment should be affirmed.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.