Fishbeck v. Phenix Ins. Co.
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial in the Fifteenth District Court, City and County of 8an Francisco. Dwinelle, J. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Department No. 2, Myrick, J.:
This is an action on a policy of insurance issued by defendant to insure a stock of goods of plaintiff. The defense was, that other insurance existed not noted on the policy, and of which defendant had no information. Plaintiff had judgment; defendant moved for a new trial, which was denied, and defendant appealed.
One Taylor, an insurance solicitor, solicited defendant to take insurance on his stock of goods. Plaintiff already had insurance to the amount of $12,500 ; namely, $5,000 in the Fireman’s *425Fund, $5,000 in the Hamburg-Bremen, and $2,500 in the People’s.…
2Cited by21 opinions
- Parsons, Rich & Co. v. LaneSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
- Arnold v. American Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1906
- Grabenheimer v. BlumTexas Supreme Court · 1885
- Goorberg v. the Western Assurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1907
- Grubbs v. North Carolina Home InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1891
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.