Legal Opinion
Smith v. Utah Home Fire Insurance
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided May 4, 1951No. Nos. 35,549, 35,550PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Matson, Justice.
Defendants in two transitory actions apply for peremptory writs of mandamus to compel the retention of said actions in Hennepin county for trial.
Plaintiff, a resident of the city of Minneapolis, Hennepin county, brought two separate actions in Anoka county seeking damages for a loss of property located in Hennepin county, a loss which was caused by a fire allegedly covered by insurance policies issued by defendants, which are foreign corporations licensed to do business in Minnesota. Pursuant to M. S. A. 71.18, service on defendants was made through substituted service on the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Power Manufacturing Co. v. SaundersSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
- German Insurance v. GraySupreme Court of Kansas · 1890
- Chadeloid Chemical Co. v. Chicago Wood Finishing Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1910
- Eickhoff v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1898
- Pomerenke v. Farmers Life Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1949
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Medical Mutual Liability Insurance Society v. Mutual Fire, Marine & Inland InsuranceCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1977
- Anderson v. Farmers Mutual Automobile InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
- Anderson v. Farmers Mutual Automobile InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1960