Hall v. Concordia Fire Insurance
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Ingham. (Person, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, J.
The plaintiff sued upon a policy of insurance of $1,000, issued by the defendant upon a stock of eggs. The evidence being undisputed, and all offered on behalf of the plaintiff, counsel on both sides agreed that it was a case in which the court should direct a verdict one way or the other. The plaintiff recovered, and the defendant appeals. •
The three principal points relied on are:
1. That the policy is void because of other insurance ' applying to the property mentioned in the policy, which was placed without notice to the company.
2. That the policy has been avoided, because proofs of loss…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Kenton Insurance v. DownsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1890
- Tubbs v. Dwelling-House InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
- Commercial Union Assurance Co. v. ScammonIllinois Supreme Court · 1888
- Guest v. New Hampshire Fire InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1887
- London & Lancashire Fire Insurance v. Turnbull & Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1887
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Southern Fire Insurance v. KnightSupreme Court of Georgia · 1900
- Gerringer v. North Carolina Home InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1903
- Continental Fire Insurance v. WhitakerTennessee Supreme Court · 1903
- Preferred Accident Insurance v. FieldingSupreme Court of Colorado · 1905
- Stinchcombe v. New York Life Ins.Oregon Supreme Court · 1905
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.