Supreme Court of the United States, 1873

Ripley v. Insurance Co.

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided April 28, 1873

83 U.S. 336; 21 L. Ed. 469; 16 Wall. 336; 1872 U.S. LEXIS 1163 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. George Gray, for the plaintiff in error: , Howard. , Mr. H. G. Robinson, contra.

Cases that cite this one

14 later published cases cite this decision.

New York Life Insurance Company, a Corporation v. Joyce A. Harrington (9th Cir. 1962)
United States v. Edwin B. Stimpson Co. (District Court, E.D. New York 1957)
Weinberger Banana Co. v. Phœnix Assur. Co. (5th Cir. 1935)
Mills v. Colonial Penn Insurance (Connecticut Superior Court 2000)
Harrington v. New York Life Insurance (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 1961)
Semon v. Royal Indemnity Co. (District Court, W.D. Louisiana 1959)
New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Jones (District Court, E.D. Michigan 1942)
Gatewood v. Continental General Life Ins. Co. of Hartford (District Court, E.D. Virginia 1927)
Wood v. General Accident Ins. Co. of Philadelphia (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania 1907)
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Aschenbrenner (9th Cir. 1933)
Detroit Fidelity & Surety Co. v. United States (6th Cir. 1930)
State v. Douglas (W. Va. 1922)
Koshland v. Columbia Insurance (Mass. 1921)
Richards v. Travelers Insurance Co. (Cal. 1891)

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

The CHIEF JUSTICE

delivered the opinion of the court.

That the deceased was travelling is clear enough, but was travelling on foot travelling by public or' private conyeyanbe?

The contract must receive the construction which the language used fairly warrants. What was' the understanding of the parties, or, rather, what understanding must naturally have been derived from the language used? It seems to us th.at walking would not naturally be presented to the mind as a means of public or private conveyance. Public conveyance naturajly suggests a vessel or vehicle employed in the general conveyance of passengers. Private conveyance suggests a vehicle belonging to a private individual.

If this was the sense in which the language was understood by the parties, the deceased was not, when injured, travelling, within the terms of the policy. There is nothing to show that it was not.

Judgment aeeirmed.

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