Skip to content

Ripley v. Insurance Co.

Ripley v. Insurance Company

Ripley v. Ins. Co., 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 336 (1873)

Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Decided: April 28, 1873
Citations: 83 U.S. 33621 L. Ed. 46916 Wall. 3361872 U.S. LEXIS 1163

Cited by 16

Syllabus

One took out an accident policy of insurance on his life while “ travelling by public or private conveyance.” Having performed a part of his journey by steamer, which brought him to a certain village, he walked thence • home about eight miles. Held, that while thus walking, he was not travelling by either public or prívale conveyance.

Summary

Error to the Circuit Court for the Western District of Michigan; the case being this : On the 8th of May, 1869, one Ripley took out an accident policy of insurance on his life, “ good for one day,” for $5000. It stipulated for the payment of that sum to the legal representatives of the assured, in the event of his death, from injuries effected through violent and accidental means; provided that the death was caused by an accident while the assured was “ travelling by public or private conveyance.” After purchasing the ticket, the insured proceeded by steamboat to a village about eight miles from his1 residence, and from that village he walked home. > While on his way he received, injuries by violence, from the effects’of which he died soon afterwards, and within the time limited by the policy. ■ .The question was whether, when he received the injuries, he was “ travelling by public or private conveyance.” The court below held that he was not; and this holding was the error complained of.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

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.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 16 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Weinberger Banana Co. v. Phœnix Assur. Co.74 F.2d 539 (5th Cir. 1935)
United States v. Edwin B. Stimpson Co.155 F. Supp. 289 (E.D.N.Y. 1957)
Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Joiner178 S.W. 806 (Tex. App. 1915)
New York Life Insurance Company, a Corporation v. Joyce A. Harrington299 F.2d 803 (9th Cir. 1962)
Gatewood v. Continental General Life Ins. Co. of Hartford23 F.2d 211 (E.D. Va. 1927)
Mills v. Colonial Penn Insurance768 A.2d 1 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2000)

Most recent

Mills v. Colonial Penn Insurance768 A.2d 1 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2000)
Untitled Texas Attorney General OpinionNo. C-711 (Tex. Att'y Gen. July 2, 1966)
New York Life Insurance Company, a Corporation v. Joyce A. Harrington299 F.2d 803 (9th Cir. 1962)
Harrington v. New York Life Insurance193 F. Supp. 675 (N.D. Cal. 1961)
Semon v. Royal Indemnity Co.179 F. Supp. 403 (W.D. La. 1959)
United States v. Edwin B. Stimpson Co.155 F. Supp. 289 (E.D.N.Y. 1957)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.