Legal Opinion

Johnson v. Inland Empire Farmers' Mutual Fire Insurance

Washington Supreme Court

Decided December 23, 1929No. 22118. Department OnePublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTolman, J.

This is an action to recover for loss under a fire insurance policy, tried to the court sitting ■without a jury. The plaintiff had a judgment as demanded, and the defendant has appealed.

The facts were stipulated in the trial court, and the findings based thereon are not questioned.

In order to grasp the questions of law here presented, but a brief statement of facts is required.

It appears that appellant, a mutual fire insurance company, for a valuable consideration, on September 2, 1925, issued to one Carl Johnson a policy insuring against loss by fire, for a term of three years, a certain…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Arnold v. American Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1906
  2. Allen v. Home Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1901
  3. Woodruff v. Imperial Fire Insurance Co. of London, EnglandNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
  4. Mawhinney v. Southern InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  5. Imperial Fire Ins. v. KiernanCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1885

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Brown v. Northwestern Mutual Fire Assn.Washington Supreme Court · 1934
  2. Jelin v. Home Ins.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1934
  3. Hall v. Walgreens Boots All., Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2025
  4. Hall v. Walgreens Boots All., Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2025

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API