William M. Clinton, Respondent v. the Hope Insurance Company, Appellant

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff, holding that the fire insurance policy covered the interests of the administratrix and the heirs despite the insured not being named, that the 1863 survey was not incorporated into the 1865 contract, and that the insurer was not subrogated to the vendor's claim after the fire. The court applied extrinsic evidence to interpret the designation "estate of Daniel Ross" and rejected the insurer's attempt to rely on alleged condition precedent and subrogation doctrines.