Legal Opinion

Wilson & Toomer Fertilizer Co. v. Automobile Ins.

District Court, S.D. Florida

Decided August 30, 1922PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CLAYTON, District Judge.

The above 11 suits have, for present-purposes, been consolidated, as the issues raised by the pleadings are-the same in each case. Each action is upon a fire insurance policy, where the subject-matter of the insurance is the use and occupancy of a fertilizer plant. All of the policies are on standard form for fire-insurance, and upon each there is pasted the commonly called “use and occupancy” form or agreement.- Each policy covers the same property, and all combined are for the sum of $74,000. On October 4, 1920, the plaintiff’s fertilizer plant was destroyed by fire.…

2Cases cited34 opinions

  1. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé Railway Co. v. EllisSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
  2. Orient Insurance v. DaggsSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
  3. Fidelity Mutual Life Ass'n v. MettlerSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
  4. Spokane & Inland Empire Railroad v. CampbellSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
  5. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. CadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1914

29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Stuyvesant Ins. Co. v. Jacksonville Oil MillCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1926
  2. Goetz v. Hartford Fire InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1927
  3. Hocking Glass Co. v. MillerDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 1933

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

Powered by the Exa API