Royal Insurance v. Jack
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtJones, J.
While the conceded facts disclose that Lewis secured possession and title to the automobile by swindle, they no less disclose that the owner, Jack, voluntarily parted with both posses sion and title upon the faith , of the fraudulent representations made by Lewis. Under the circumstances disclosed, there is no doubt but that Lewis would be guilty of obtaining property under false pretenses under Section 13104 of our criminal code. However, Lewis would not be guilty of larceny of the automobile under Section 12447 or Section 12448, General 'Code.
The defendant in error relies for recovery upon…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Van Vechten v. American Eagle Fire InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1925
- Illinois Automobile Ins. Exch. v. Southern Motor Sales Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1922
- Hill v. North River InsuranceSupreme Court of Kansas · 1922
- Cedar Rapids National Bank v. American Surety Co. of New YorkSupreme Court of Iowa · 1923
- Gunn v. Globe & Rutgers Fire InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1919
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Gomolka v. State Automobile Mutual InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1982
- Munchick v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1965
- Toms v. Hartford Fire Ins.Ohio Supreme Court · 1945
- Granger v. New Jersey InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
- Stychno v. Ohio Edison Co.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1992
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.