Commercial Union Assurance Co. v. State ex rel. Smith
Indiana Supreme Court
From the Henry Circuit Court.
1Opinion of the CourtElliott, J.
There are three paragraphs of the complaint, but there is no substantial difference between them. They are all based upon a contract of insurance. A single objection is made to the third paragraph, and that is, that it does not aver that the plaintiff furnished the defendant with preliminary proofs of loss. The complaint does aver, however, that the relators performed all the conditions of the contract on their part, and this is sufficient. If a plaintiff' elects, he may specifically plead a performance of the conditions, and if he does elect to do this, he is bound to specifically aver full…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Insurance Co. v. WilkinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Grace v. American Central InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Van Schoick v. . Niagara Fire Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1877
- Rowley v. . the Empire Insurance Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1867
- Gans v. St. Paul Fire & Marine InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1877
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by54 opinions
- Bowlus v. Phenix InsuranceIndiana Supreme Court · 1892
- Service v. Pyramid Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Kansas · 1968
- Security Ins. Co. of New Haven v. CameronSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1922
- Indiana Insurance v. HartwellIndiana Supreme Court · 1890
- Providence Washington Insurance v. WolfIndiana Supreme Court · 1907
49 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.