Legal Opinion

Hartford Fire Ins. v. Davenport

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided November 1, 1877PublishedCited by 29 opinions

Error to Van Burén. Assumpsit on an insurance policy. The facts are in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, J.

The defendants in error brought suit upon a policy of insurance issued to one Headly and' on the face of it appearing to be for different sums on five distinct buildings and upon furniture and other personal property also, the aggregate sums insured amounting to $2,500. The policy contained the following clause: “Payable in event of loss to the property on said farm premises to the executors of the estate of Ira Davenport as mortgagees, as their interest may appear.” The mortgage was for $2,000 on real estate.

There was a condition which declared that “ if the premises hereby insured shall…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Peoria Marine & Fire Insurance v. HallMichigan Supreme Court · 1864
  2. Clay Fire & Marine Insurance v. Huron Salt & Lumber Manufacturing Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1875
  3. Aurora Fire & Marine Insurance v. KranichMichigan Supreme Court · 1877
  4. Van Buren v. St. Joseph County Village Fire InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1874

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Palmer Savings Bank v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1896
  2. Continental Insurance v. H. M. Loud & Sons Lumber Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1892
  3. Chrisman v. State InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1888
  4. Improved-Match Co. v. Michigan Mutual Fire InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1899
  5. German Fire Insurance v. Bullene, Moore, Emery & Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1893

24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API