Legal Opinion

Detroit Manufacturers' Mutual Fire Insurance v. Merrill

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 5, 1894PublishedCited by 10 opinions

Error to Bay. (Cobb, J.) Assumpsit. Defendants bring error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.

Plaintiff is a corporation organized under Act No. 78, Laws of 1883 (3 How. Stat. chap. 134a). May 24, 1890, a policy was issued to the defendants, who gave their note for the premium, which reads as follows:

“ $324.00. Detroit, Mich., May 24, 1890.
"In consideration of policy No. 1,023, dated the 24th day of May, 1890, we promise to pay the Detroit Manufacturers’ Mutual Fire Insurance Oo. the sum of $324, by installments, at such time as the directors of said company may order and assess, for' the losses and expenses of said company, pursuant to its charter and by-laws. It is hereby expressly…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Wardle v. TownsendMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Dewey v. DavisWisconsin Supreme Court · 1892
  3. Conrad v. La RueMichigan Supreme Court · 1883
  4. Evarts v. United States Mutual Accident Ass'nNew York Supreme Court · 1891

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Mutual Fire Insurance v. Phoenix Furniture Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1895
  2. Nichol v. MurphyMichigan Supreme Court · 1906
  3. Seamans v. Millers' Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1895
  4. Warner v. Delbridge & Cameron Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1896
  5. Ely v. Oakland Circuit JudgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1910

5 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