Legal Opinion
Morley v. Liverpool, London & Globe Insurance
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided July 28, 1892PublishedCited by 4 opinions
Error to Saginaw. (Edgefc, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion, and in 85 Mich. 210.
1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.
The essential facts in this case are sufficiently stated in 85 Mich. 210. A second trial resulted in a verdict for plaintiff. Two errors are now assigned; one involving the rejection of evidence, and the other the charge of the court.
1. Emanuel Lenhoff, the son of Joseph M. Lenhoff, the real party in interest, was produced as a witness for the plaintiff, and testified to the condition and value of the goods, and the character of the damage done by the fire. On cross-examination he was asked the following ■question:
“Don’t you know that your father had not been making money enough to pay his…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Lincoln v. ClaflinSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
- Castle v. BullardSupreme Court of the United States · 1860
- Bottomley v. United StatesU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1840
- Jerome v. WhitneyNew York Supreme Court · 1811
- Kingsley v. . City of BrooklynNew York Court of Appeals · 1879
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Herpolsheimer v. Citizens InsuranceNebraska Supreme Court · 1907
- Springfield Fire Marine Ins. Co. v. GriffinSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1917
- Township of Deerfield v. HarperMichigan Supreme Court · 1898
- Lyons v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1924