Legal Opinion
Buick v. Mechanics' Insurance
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided December 18, 1894PublishedCited by 15 opinions
Error to Wayne. (Hosmer, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.
The- court made the following findings of fact and law:
“1. The Mechanics’ Insurance Company, defendant herein, and the Michigan Eire & Marine Insurance Company were both authorized and doing business in the State of Michigan at the time of the occurrence hereinafter mentioned, and had agencies in the city of Detroit. Bierce & Sage were local agents of the defendant company, with authority to place insurance and issue policies in that company.
“2. E. 0. Davenport is in the insurance business in the city of Detroit, receiving orders and applications for insurance from whomsoever might apply to…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Dibble v. Northern Assurance Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1888
- Hartford Fire Insurance v. ReynoldsMichigan Supreme Court · 1877
3Cited by15 opinions
- Phœnix Insurance v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
- Hamm Realty Co. v. New Hampshire Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1900
- Sterling Fire Insurance v. Comision Reguladora Del Mercado De HenequenIndiana Supreme Court · 1924
- Warren v. Franklin Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1913
- Edwards v. Home InsuranceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1903
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.