Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co. v. McCarthy
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
1Opinion of the CourtWoodbury, J.
The questions of law raised by the plaintiff’s query with respect to its duty, under the circumstances disclosed, to pay any judgment which the father may eventually recover in his personal action against the insured have been recently considered by this court. Putnam v. Corporation, ante, 74; Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Co. v. Yeroyan, ante, 145. We see no reason to recapitulate the reasoning of these cases or to reconsider the result which they reach. In consequence the plaintiff’s second question is answered in the negative.
Upon the first question propounded no authority in point has come…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Brassil v. . Maryland Casualty Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1914
- Lunt v. Aetna Life Insurance Co. of HartfordMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1928
- Mannheimer Bros. v. Kansas Casualty & Surety Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1921
- Fullerton v. United States Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1918
- Fessenden School, Inc. v. American Mutual Liability InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by41 opinions
- Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1985
- Pareti v. Sentry Indem. Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1988
- St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. ThompsonMontana Supreme Court · 1967
- United States v. StreidelCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1993
- American Employers Insurance v. Goble Aircraft Specialties, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1954
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.