Latta v. Fidelity-Phenix Fire Insurance
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtJones, J.
Counsel for the plaintiff do not deny the claim of the defendant that if the plaintiff fraudulently concealed the truth as to incumbrances on his land the policies were invalidated. Counsel for the defendant make no claim that Scobie was not authorized to take applications for insurance. It is contended by counsel for the appellant that the verdict of the jury should have been set aside because it was contrary to every reasonable probability that the special agent of the defendant, with many years of experience, would for a moment have considered an application under the facts established by…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Musbach v. Wisconsin Chair Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1900
- Beyer v. St. Paul Fire & Marine InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
- Flaherty v. HarrisonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1898
- Lee v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1898
- Badger v. Janesville Cotton MillsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Teche Lines, Inc. v. BoundsMississippi Supreme Court · 1938
- Elsworth v. GlindmeyerMississippi Supreme Court · 1970
- Smith v. BenjaminWisconsin Supreme Court · 1952
- Sovich v. LoewnWisconsin Supreme Court · 1929
- Southwest Mississippi Electric Power Ass'n v. HarriedCourt of Appeals of Mississippi · 2000