Legal Opinion

Buchholz v. United States Fire Insurance

New York Supreme Court

Decided November 23, 1944PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHammer, J.

Defendant moves for dismissal of the complaint. The branch to dismiss under the Buies of Civil Practice (rule 106, subd. 5), on the ground that the complaint on its face fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, is without merit. The allegations, in effect, show plaintiff is suing under a fire insurance policy of $15,000 for property destroyed by fire which had been sold for at least that amount but not delivered prior to its destruction, under the terms of the policy, which provided: “ It is understood and agreed that the basis of settlement in- stock sold but not…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Littrell v. Allemania Fire Insurance Co. of PittsburghNew York Court of Appeals · 1929
  2. McGovern v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1937
  3. Littrell v. Allemania Fire InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1928
  4. Buchholz v. United States Fire InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1943
  5. Buchholz v. United States Fire InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1944

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Producers Releasing Corp. De Cuba v. Pathe Industries, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1950
  2. Bocchino v. Nationwide Mutual Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998

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

Powered by the Exa API