Legal Opinion
Cowan v. Phenix Insurance
California Supreme Court
Decided January 29, 1889No. 12608PublishedCited by 17 opinions
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Butte County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtThornton, J.
— Action on policy of fire insurance, on which plaintiff recovered judgment. Defendant appeals.
The complaint was demurred to on the general ground.
The counsel of defendant states in their brief very clearly the particulars in which they contend that the complaint is insufficient. We copy these from the brief. They are as follows: —
“ 1. The plaintiff alleges that, for a sufficient consideration, the defendant made its policy of insurance to her, a copy of which is annexed to and made a part of the complaint. That policy contains the following agreements and conditions: ‘ By this policy of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Jefferson Insurance v. H. & D. Cotheal.New York Supreme Court · 1831
- Rufus Bobbitt v. . Liverpool and London and Globe Ins.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1872
- Murdock & Garratt v. Chenango Co. Mutual InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1849
- Doyle v. Phœnix InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
3Cited by17 opinions
- Raulet v. Northwestern Nat'l Ins. Co. of MilwaukeeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
- Golden Gate Motor Transport Co. v. Great American Indemnity Co.California Supreme Court · 1936
- Wilkinson v. Standard Accident Insurance Co. of DetroitCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- Berliner v. Travelers' Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1898
- Rankin v. Amazon Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1891
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.