Legal Opinion
Central Mfrs. Mut. Ins. v. Jim Dandy Markets, Inc.
District Court, S.D. California
Decided April 15, 1948No. 6833PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
YANKWICH, District Judge (after stating the facts as above).
The above-entitled cause heretofore tried, argued and submitted, is hereby decided as follows:
I. On the plaintiff’s complaint seeking declaratory relief, the declaration will be for the defendant as follows:(a) The defendant Jim Dandy Markets, Inc., had an insurable interest in the building which was covered by the policies of fire insurance dated respectively June 19, 1946, and July 19, 1946, under their conditional sales contract for the assignment of the leasehold, dated June 27, 1946 (Defendant’s Exhibit 10).(b) The loss payable…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Angel v. BullingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- California Trust Co. v. CohnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
- Harding v. RobinsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- Bewick v. MechamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
- Lestrade v. BarthCalifornia Supreme Court · 1862
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- In re KellyDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1949
- Tri-State Mutual Grain Dealers Fire Insurance Company v. C. R. Morris, Constance B. Honaker, the Home Insurance Company and the Canadian Fire Insurance Company, C. R. Morris and Constance B. Honaker, Cross-Appellants v. The Home Insurance Company and the Canadian Fire Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1959
- Tri-State Mutual Grain Dealers Fire Insurance v. MorrisCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1959