Legal Opinion
Gallotti v. Continental Insurance
New York Supreme Court
Decided June 14, 1933PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtShientag, J.
The decision of the court is as follows:
1. The partnership was and is the owner of the insured premises. It never actually parted with title. The sole and unconditional ownership clause was not breached although the record title was placed in another’s name. The transfer in 1920, unaccompanied by the delivery of the deeds, and for which no consideration was paid, was merely colorable and not real or effective. There was no intention to consummate a change of title. (Forward v. Continental Insurance Co., 142 N. Y. 382.) In fact, legal title is not the test of
*353ownership within the terms of the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Savarese v. Ohio Farmers Insurance Co. of LeroyNew York Court of Appeals · 1932
- Forward v. Continental InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
- Glazer v. . Home Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1907
- Brighton Beach Racing Ass'n v. Home InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1906
- Buszozak v. WoloNew York Supreme Court · 1925
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Zeller v. Preferred Mutual Fire InsuranceCity of New York Municipal Court · 1957
- Emanuel M. Virshup, Trustee in Bankruptcy of Teddy Kaye, Bankrupt v. Industrial Bank of CommerceCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1959
- Gallotti v. Continental InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1934