Eureka Fire & Marine Insurance v. Baldwin
Ohio Supreme Court
Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga County. The pleadings in the common pleas, omitting the captions and signatures, are as. follows: PETITION. Plaintiff says: That each of defendants is a corporation, duly incorporated under the laws of the state of Ohio.
Read the full summary
Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga County. The pleadings in the common pleas, omitting the captions and signatures, are as. follows: PETITION. Plaintiff says: That each of defendants is a corporation, duly incorporated under the laws of the state of Ohio. On the 20th day of April, 1893, plaintiff, being the owner of a house on North Depot street in Nottingham, Cuyahoga county, Ohio, in consideration of the premium of three and 20-100 dollars paid, the defendants, by their policy of insurance, a copy of which is hereto annexed, insured plaintiff .against loss or damage by fire to the…
1Opinion of the CourtBueket, J.
The plaintiff below did not concede upon the trial that the house was unoccupied by a tenant in the sense in which that term is used in the policy, but he conceded facts which when applied to the terms of the policy in legal effect showed that the house was unoccupied by a tenant from April 19 to May 16, 1894. The son’s sleeping in the house, as stated in the evidence, was not an occupancy by tenant, and the family residing nest door and getting rain water at this house and the owner visiting the house each day, and like acts did not aid the matter.
The court should therefore have charged the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Raney v. BaronSupreme Court of Florida · 1847
- Talcott Mountain Turnpike Co. v. MarshallSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1836