Hosford v. Germania Fire Ins. Co.
127 U.S. 399 (1888)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Hosford v. Germania Fire Ins. Co., 127 U.S. 399 (1888)

Hosford v. Germania Fire Insurance Company

No. 263

Argued April 26-27, 1888

Decided May 14, 1888

127 U.S. 399

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

Syllabus

A provision in a policy of fire insurance that if the interest of the assured in the property is "any other than the entire, unconditional, and sole ownership for the use and benefit of the assured," or is " encumbered by any lien, whether by deed of trust, mortgage or otherwise," it must be so represented in the policy does not, if it is stated that the property is encumbered, require a statement of the nature or amount of the encumbrances.

An application for fire insurance, expressly made a part of the policy and a warranty by the assured, contained these questions and answers: "Is there any encumbrance on the property? Yes. If mortgaged, state the amount. $3000." Held that an omission to state that the property was encumbered otherwise than by mortgage was no breach of the warranty. A warranty, in a contract of fire insurance that "smoking is not allowed on the premises" is not, if smoking is then forbidden on the premises, broken by the assured or others afterwards smoking there.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.