CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY
US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for www.chanrobles.com


PHOENIX INS. CO. V. ERIE & W. TRANSP. CO., 118 U. S. 210 (1886)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 118 U. S. 210 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Erie & W. Transp. Co., 118 U.S. 210 (1886)

Phoenix Insurance Company v. Erie and Western Transportation Company

Argued January 19-20, 1886

Decided March 1, 1886

118 U.S. 210

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

Syllabus

This case is reported in Vol. 117, U.S. pages 117 U. S. 312 to 327. MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY delivered an oral dissent, which is noted on page 327. An imperfect copy of this having found its way into print, he prepared and filed the following:

MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY dissenting.

The insurer of goods which are lost while in custody of a carrier, upon paying the loss, is subrogated to the claim of the insured against the carrier. Hall & Long v. Railroad Companies, 13 Wall. 367. This being so, I think that the insured cannot, by separate agreement with the carrier, deprive the insurer of this right. Such agreement would be res inter alios acta, and void as against the insurer. It would be a fraud upon him. The carrier would thereby protect himself against the consequences of his own negligence, and compel the insurer to indemnify him without paying any premium. The owner of the goods gives up no right himself against the carrier, but they two agree, behind the insurer's back, that he shall have no right of subrogation against the carrier, but that the carrier shall have such a right against him, thus changing the law by their private agreement! It seems to me that this is contrary both to law and justice.





Back
ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for chanrobles.com Search for www.chanrobles.com


Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



www.chanrobles.us




QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

Browse By ->> Volume


cralaw

Browse By ->> Year


cralaw

  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
 
RED