Legal Opinion

Agricultural Insurance v. Montague

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 3, 1878PublishedCited by 30 opinions

Error to Tuscola. Assumpsit on insurance policy. Defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtCooley, J.

The action in this case was upon a policy of insurance issued to one Graves and assigned by him after a loss to Montague, the plaintiff below. The plaintiff recovered judgment and the case is before us on error.

It appeared on the trial that Graves did not pay the premium when he received his policy, but was allowed a credit by the agent who transacted the business. The defendant insisted that the delivery of the policy before the premium was paid was unwarranted; there being evidence that the agent had no authority to give credit.' It was shown, however, that the agent accounted 'to the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Peoria Marine & Fire Insurance v. HallMichigan Supreme Court · 1864
  2. Clay Fire & Marine Insurance v. Huron Salt & Lumber Manufacturing Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1875

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. Loventhal v. Home InsuranceSupreme Court of Alabama · 1895
  2. Commercial Fire Ins. v. AllenSupreme Court of Alabama · 1886
  3. Patterson v. Durand Farmers Mutual Fire InsuranceAppellate Court of Illinois · 1940
  4. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. AllenMichigan Supreme Court · 1935
  5. Traders Insurance v. NewmanIndiana Supreme Court · 1889

25 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