Hatch v. New Zealand Insurance Co.
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtThornton, J.
The defendant insured the property of the plaintiff in the Overland Free Warehouse, situate at the northeast corner of Third and King streets, San Francisco. It makes no difference that this building was styled in the policy Overland Free Warehouse No. 1. As it was actually Overland Free Warehouse No. 2, instead of No. l,the part of the description No. 1 in the policy should be rejected as false. No. 2 was the warehouse at the corner, while No. 1 was forty-six feet distant from it. If the property intended to be conveyed is described in a deed as Overland Free Warehouse No. 1, situate on the…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Baker v. State InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1897
- Royal Ins. Co. v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1935
- Snow v. HolmesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Edwards v. Fireman's Insurance Co. of BaltimoreAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1904
- Shivers v. Farmers Mutual Fire InsuranceMississippi Supreme Court · 1911