Lavenstein Bros. v. Hartford Fire Insurance
Supreme Court of Virginia
Error to a judgment of the Hustings Court of city of Petersburg in an action of assumpsit. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiffs assign error.
Read the full summary
Error to a judgment of the Hustings Court of city of Petersburg in an action of assumpsit. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiffs assign error. This action was instituted by the plaintiffs in error (hereinafter referred to as the assured) for the recovery of the sum of $2,500, the amount of fire insurance provided for in a policy of insurance issued to the plaintiffs by the defendant in error (hereinafter referred to as the insurance company). The policy was issued on September 19,1913, for a period of one year on the “stock of general merchandise, consisting chiefly of millinery, dry goods,…
1Opinion of the Court
Sims, J.,
after making the foregoing statement, delivered the following opinion of the court.
The record in the case is voluminous. The petition and briefs are also exceptionally so. The latter, however, involve a number of questions which we do not find it necessary to deal with. The only questions which need to be considered for the decision of the case, in our view of it, will be disposed of in their order as stated below.
We will first consider the questions raised by the assignments of error touching the inventory in evidence, which is relied on by the assured as sufficient to comply with…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Chaffee & Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Mokotock Insurance v. Rodefer Bros.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1896
- Virginia Fire & Marine Insurance v. HogueSupreme Court of Virginia · 1906
- Homestead Fire Insurance v. IsonSupreme Court of Virginia · 1909
- Newberry v. WattsSupreme Court of Virginia · 1914
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Brand Distributors, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 1974