Legal Opinion

Buchholz v. United States Fire Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided February 11, 1943PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

We do not need to consider whether, in the absence of a special contract, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover the value of the garlic destroyed by fire, in accordance with the terms of the original policy or the price at which a portion of the garlic was contracted to be sold in accordance with the terms of the rider. The parties themselves, acting under the policy, executed a written contract submitting* to appraisers the amount of the loss on terms which presumably were satisfactory to them. It is not suggested that the agreement was procured by fraud or mistake or even under a…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Wachtel v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United StatesNew York Court of Appeals · 1935

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Carrick v. Central General HospitalNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
  2. Buchholz v. United States Fire InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1945
  3. Glicksman v. North River InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982
  4. Buchholz v. United States Fire InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1944
  5. Navidea Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. and MacRophage Therapeutics, Inc. v. Capital Royalty Partners II, L.P., Capital Royalty Partners II - Parallel Fund "A", L.P., Capital Royalty Partners II (Cayman) L.P., and Capital Royalty Partners II - Parallel Fund "B" (Cayman) L.P., Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2019

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API