Legal Opinion
Martin v. Insurance Co.
Tennessee Supreme Court
Decided February 2, 1901PublishedCited by 9 opinions
BBOM DAVIDSON. Appeal from Chancery Court of Davidson County. H. H. Cook, Oh.
1Opinion of the CourtMcAlister, J.
This record presents a controversy between two -fire insurance companies as to which sha]] be onerated with a -loss. The complainant has sued both companies. The Palatine Company issued the first policy, but it is. contended that policy was canceled upon notice, and a new policy substituted in the Hartford Company. The Chancellor and the Court of Chancery Appeals concurred in adjudging liability against the Palatine Company, and in exonerating the Hartford Company. The Palatine Company appealed, and has assigned errors.
The facts found by the Court of Chancery Appeals are substantially these:…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Grace v. American Central InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Hermann v. Niagara Fire InsururanceNew York Court of Appeals · 1885
- White v. Connecticut Fire InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
- Kehler v. New Orleans Ins.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri · 1885
3Cited by9 opinions
- Maryland Casualty Co. v. McTyierTennessee Supreme Court · 1924
- Waterloo Lumber Co. v. Des Moines InsuranceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1912
- Royal Insurance Co. v. Alliance Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1985
- Pelaggi Co. v. Orient Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1930
- Norwich Union Fire Ins. Society v. DaltonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1914
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.