Flint & P. M. R. Co. v. Marine Ins.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Michigan
This is an action of assumpsit, brought upon the policy of marine insurance issued by the defendant, August 1, 1892, upon the propeller “Flint and Pere Marquette, No. 2,” styled in the pleadings and evidence in the case “F. & P. M. No. 2.” The policy ran from noon of August 1, 1892, to noon of December 5, 1892, and insured the plaintiff in the sum of $15,000. The risks covered by the policy are thus defined in that instrument: “Touching the adventures and perils which the…
Read the full summary
This is an action of assumpsit, brought upon the policy of marine insurance issued by the defendant, August 1, 1892, upon the propeller “Flint and Pere Marquette, No. 2,” styled in the pleadings and evidence in the case “F. & P. M. No. 2.” The policy ran from noon of August 1, 1892, to noon of December 5, 1892, and insured the plaintiff in the sum of $15,000. The risks covered by the policy are thus defined in that instrument: “Touching the adventures and perils which the said insurance company is content to bear and take upon itself by this policy, they are of the lakes, rivers, canals,…
1Opinion of the Court
SWAN, District Judge.
Three grounds are assigned in plaintiff’s motion for a new trial: (1) Because the court directed a verdict for the defendant; (2) because of newly-discovered evidence; (3) that the plaintiff was taken by surprise.
In considering this motion, it is to be borne in mind that it is an appeal to the discretion of the court, and not merely to its power, and the real question for determination is whether the party applying for a new trial has been wronged by the misdirection of the court in matter of law, or, without fault or laches on his part, has been disabled from fully…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- The PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Belden v. ChaseSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- North Pennsylvania Railroad v. Commercial Bank of ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- The AriadneSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Jones v. Guaranty & Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1880
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- O'Hara v. Luckenbach Steamship Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- United States v. Van SchaickU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1904
- The DenaliCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1940
- Ishizaki Kisen Company, Ltd. v. United States of America, Ishizaki Kisen Company, Ltd. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1975
- Viles v. Prudential Ins. Co. of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1939
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.