Robinson v. International Life Assurance Society of London

2 Citing cases

  1. Hoffman v. Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co.

    92 U.S. 161 (1875)   Cited 33 times
    In Hoffman v. John Hancock Life Insurance Co., 92 U.S. 161 (a case remarkably like this), it was held that the taking of a horse by an agent of an insurance company to pay the premium of a policy was ultra vires and a fraud as respects the company, to which the insured was a party, and that no valid contract as to the company could arise from such a transaction.

    An agreement between the agent of an insurance company and an applicant for insurance, whereby the former, without authority from the company, accepted, by way of satisfaction of a premium payable in money, articles of personal property, is a fraud upon the company, and no valid contract against it arises therefrom. Mr. James A. Garfield, for the appellant, cited Insurance Company v. Wilkinson, 13 Wall. 222; Masters v. Madison County Alert Insurance Co., 11 Barb. 624; May on Ins., sects. 134, 143; Taylor v. Merchants' Fire Ins. Co., 9 How. 390: 42 N.Y. 54; 20 Barb. 468; 2 Ins. Law Jour. 23; 25 Barb. 189; Hallock v. Commercial Ins. Co., 2 Dutch. 268; 25 Conn. 207; id. 542; 43 Barb. 351; Cooper v. Pacific, 3 J.C.R. 254 3 Ohio St. 549; 4 id. 353; Fraternal Life Ins. Co. v. Applegate, 7 id. 292; Bliss on Life Ins., sect. 317. Mr. H.L. Terrell for the appellee.

  2. Clements v. Yturria

    81 N.Y. 285 (N.Y. 1880)   Cited 14 times

    Whether those cases go upon the particular requirements of the act of Congress cited in them in relation to abandoned and captured property, or whether that the United States was a party, was supposed to affect the rule to be declared, we will not inquire. As the question presented in this case is not a Federal question, we are not bound to follow those decisions, when by doing so we will depart from what is recognized as law in our own State. In Robinson v. Int. Nat. Life Ass. Soc. ( 42 N.Y. 54, 66), it is indicated that rights may arise from a contract void in itself as against public policy, where the contract has been carried out by the parties to it. In Woodworth v. Bennett ( 43 N.Y. 273), it is recognized, that if an illegal and void contract be so fully executed, as that a demand connected with it is capable of being enforced at law without aid from the illegal transaction, the claim will be sustained.