Legal Opinion
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Adams
Court of Appeals of Texas
Decided May 21, 1913PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLevy, J.
(after stating the facts as above).
By its first assignment the plaintiff in error makes the contention that the failure on the part of the insured to take an inventory of the stock of merchandise within 30 days after the date of the policy worked a forfeiture of the policy, and a verdict should have been directed in favor of plaintiff in error. It was an admitted fact in the trial that an inventory of the stock of merchandise was not taken by the insured within 30 days after the date of the policy, and that none was ever taken before the date of the policy, and the loss occurred several…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Liverpool & London & Globe Insurance v. KearneySupreme Court of the United States · 1901
- Southern Fire Insurance v. KnightSupreme Court of Georgia · 1900
- Dorroh-Kelly Mercantile Co. v. Orient InsuranceTexas Supreme Court · 1911
- Western Assurance Co. of Toronto, Canada v. KemendoTexas Supreme Court · 1901
- Reynolds Ex Rel. Lee v. German American InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1907
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Merchants' & Manufacturers' Lloyd's Ins. Exch. v. Southern Trading Co. of TexasTexas Commission of Appeals · 1921
- Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co. v. MaloneSupreme Court of Alabama · 1928
- Fisher v. Sun InsuranceWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1914
- Germania Fire Ins. v. Fort Worth Grain & Elevator Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1925
- Mechanics' & Traders' Ins. Co. v. DavisCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1914
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.