Legal Opinion
Hall v. Niagara Fire Insurance
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided October 4, 1892PublishedCited by 20 opinions
Error to Wayne. (Hosmer, J.) Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error. The facts - are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMcGrath, J.
This is an action upon a policy of insurance dated October 13, 1888, and running for three years, issued to J. O. Hough “ on his two-story frame dwelling, * * * against all such immediate loss or damage sustained by the assured as may occur by fire to the property above specified, but not exceeding the interest of the assured in the property.” By the terms of the policy, the assured by its acceptance—
“Warrants that any application, survey, plan, statement, or description, connected with procuring this insurance, or contained in 'or referred to in this policy, is true, and shall be a part of…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Steen v. . Niagara Fire Insurance CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
- Ellis v. Council Bluffs InsuranceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1884
- O'Brien v. Ohio InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1883
- Continental Insurance v. MunnsIndiana Supreme Court · 1889
- Shearman v. . the Niagara Fire Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1871
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Parsons, Rich & Co. v. LaneSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
- Glens Falls Insurance Co. v. MichaelIndiana Supreme Court · 1905
- Crossman v. American InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1917
- State Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. RosenberryTexas Commission of Appeals · 1919
- Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co. v. Northern Assurance Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1905
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.