Swing v. Rose
Ohio Supreme Court
Error to the Circuit Court of Coshocton County. The Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company of Cincinnati was incorporated as such on the first day of June, 1887, under Sections 3634 to 3658, Revised Statutes of Ohio, and carried on a fire insurance business on the mutual plan during the years 1888, 1889 and at least a part of 1890. On the 18th day of December, 1890, on account of its failure to meet its legal obligations and. discharge its duties under the law, this court…
Read the full summary
Error to the Circuit Court of Coshocton County. The Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company of Cincinnati was incorporated as such on the first day of June, 1887, under Sections 3634 to 3658, Revised Statutes of Ohio, and carried on a fire insurance business on the mutual plan during the years 1888, 1889 and at least a part of 1890. On the 18th day of December, 1890, on account of its failure to meet its legal obligations and. discharge its duties under the law, this court dissolved the corporation and appointed the plaintiff in error trustee for the creditors and policyholders of said company.…
1Opinion of the CourtPrice, J.
The questions in controversy between the parties are —(1) Did the trial court err in the admission of testimony introduced by the defendants?(2) Did the court err in refusing to instruct the jury as requested by the plaintiff?(3) Is there error in the general charge prejudicial to the plaintiff below?(1) It was alleged in the petition that the policy of insurance was taken out by a co-partnership known as “The Heirs of Daniel Rose,” and on their property, and that on that account they became liable to the assessment made by this court, referred to in the foregoing statement of the case. The…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Hawkins v. GlennSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Glenn v. LiggettSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Langworthy v. GardingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1898
- Mutual Fire Insurance v. Phoenix Furniture Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1895
- Commonwealth Mutual Fire Insurance v. Hayden Bros.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1901