Legal Opinion

Stillman v. North River Insurance

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided February 8, 1927PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtOwen, J.

This is an action to recover on a fire insurance policy. The defense is that the policy was forfeited by reason of the removal of the insured property to a different location without the written consent of the company indorsed on the policy. The policy covered certain household goods “only while contained in or attached to the two-story shingle-roof frame building occupied for dwelling purposes, situated at 55 North Portland street, city of Fond du Lac, state, of Wisconsin.” The policy also contained this provision:

“No one shall have power to waive any provision or condition of this policy…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Joliffe v. Madison Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1875
  2. Erdmann v. Mutual Insurance Co. of the Order of Herman's Sons of WisconsinWisconsin Supreme Court · 1878
  3. McQuillan v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Ass'nWisconsin Supreme Court · 1902
  4. Spohn v. National Fire Insurance Co. of HartfordWisconsin Supreme Court · 1926
  5. Farmers Mutual Insurance v. Home Fire InsuranceNebraska Supreme Court · 1898

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Schuster v. Germantown Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1968
  2. Klingler v. Milwaukee Mechanics InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1927
  3. Emmco Insurance v. Palatine InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1953
  4. Struebing v. American InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1929
  5. Schlee v. New Zealand Insurance Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1927

4 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