Legal Opinion

Phoenix Indemnity Co. v. Barrett

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided January 27, 1934PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Chambliss

Recovery sought in this suit from the indemnity company on its policy contract of the amount of a judgment at law, based on negligence in operation of an automobile, was resisted before the chancellor on the ground that the automobile was being driven, at the time the accident occurred on the streets of Murfreesboro, by a boy under sixteen years of age; that this was in violation of an ordinance of the city of Murfreesboro, and the indemnity company relied on a provision in its policy contract reading as follows:

“This policy shall not indemnify the assured in respect of any automobile while…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. GuentherSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
  2. Ex parte ChristensenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  3. Carroll Blake Const. Co. v. BoyleTennessee Supreme Court · 1918
  4. In re LawrenceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
  5. Mayor of Jonesboro v. KincheloeTennessee Supreme Court · 1923

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Bailey v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1937
  2. Holland Supply Corp. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceSupreme Court of Virginia · 1936
  3. Crahan v. Automobile Underwriters, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  4. Hunter v. Western & Southern Indemnity Co.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1935
  5. Continental Casualty Co. v. LolleySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1943

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

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

Powered by the Exa API