Legal Opinion

Nurney v. Fireman's Fund Insurance

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided November 17, 1886PublishedCited by 28 opinions

Error to Iosco. (Tuttle, J.) Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error. The facts. are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtSherwood, J.

This action was brought to recover the amount of a loss by fire sustained by the plaintiff, under a policy of insurance issued to him by the defendant, upon a drug-store, and the stock of drugs therein, situate in the village of Oscoda, in the county of Iosco.

The policy was made on the twenty-fifth day of July, 1884, to continue in force one year thereafter. The fire which destroyed the property occurred on the twenty-seventh day of October, 1884, and the next day an appraisal was made, which showed the loss to be about 83,000, while the insurance upon the stock and store amounted to but…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Reed v. Washington Fire & Marine InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1885
  2. Gere v. Council Bluffs Ins.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1885
  3. Phœnix Insurance Co. v. BadgerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1881
  4. Hurst v. . LitchfieldNew York Court of Appeals · 1868
  5. McGunn. v. HanlinMichigan Supreme Court · 1874

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

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Farnum v. Phoenix InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  2. Phenix Insurance v. StocksIllinois Supreme Court · 1893
  3. Chippewa Lumber Co. v. Phenix InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
  4. Second Society of Universalists v. Royal InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1915
  5. Independent School District No. 35 v. A. Hedenberg & Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1943

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

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

Powered by the Exa API