Legal Opinion

Russell v. Detroit Mutual Fire Insurance

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided May 2, 1890PublishedCited by 21 opinions

Error to Wayne. (Hosmer, J.) Assumpsit on an insurance policy. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtMorse, J.

The plaintiff sued upon a policy issued by *409defendant, March 2, 1888, for one year. The insurance was $1,000 upon a two-story frame building occupied for general store purposes, and described in the policy as—

“ Situated on the south side of Main street, in the village of Sumpter, Wayne county, Michigan."

Also, $200 on the store fixtures, and $200 on general stock of merchandise. August 5, 1888, the building burned, and was a total loss. The defenses insisted upon in this Court are that the property was not located in a village or city, and that there was a mortgage upon the premises at the time…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Kausal v. Minnesota Farmers' Mutual Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
  2. Bebee v. Hartford County Mutual Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1856
  3. Crouse v. Hartford Fire InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1890

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Wyandotte Savings Bank v. State Banking CommissionerMichigan Supreme Court · 1956
  2. Pastucha v. RothMichigan Supreme Court · 1939
  3. State ex rel. Town of Holland v. LammersWisconsin Supreme Court · 1902
  4. Grossman v. LangerMichigan Supreme Court · 1934
  5. Improved-Match Co. v. Michigan Mutual Fire InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1899

16 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