Blasingame v. Home Ins. Co. of City of N.Y.
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Belches, C. C.
This is an action upon a policy of insurance against fire, executed by the two companies named as defendants.
The defendants separately demurred to the complaint, upon the grounds, first, that there was a misjoinder of parties defendant, because no joint liability was shown; *634and second, that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The court sustained the demurrers upon both grounds, holding that there was a misjoinder, and that the complaint did not state sufficient facts, because it failed to allege that the loss did not occur from any of…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Ferrer v. Home Mutual InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874
- Mendocino County v. MorrisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
- Motley v. Manufacturers' InsuranceSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1849
- Bernero v. South British & National InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
- Hunt v. Hudson River Fire InsuranceThe Superior Court of New York City · 1853
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- Richards v. Travelers Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1891
- Silvers v. GrossmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- Western Assur. Co. of Toronto v. J. H. Mohlman Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1897
- Heeser v. MillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Dennis v. Union Mutual Life Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1890
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.