Legal Opinion

Western Horse & Cattle Insurance v. Putnam

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided July 15, 1886PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Error to the district court for Dixon county. Tried below before Crawford, J.

1Opinion of the CourtReese, J.

This was an action on a policy of insurance, executed by plaintiff in error to defendant in error, by which the plaintiff in error insured a certain jack, or stallion ass, as it is termed in the policy, for the sum of $300, the real value of which was stated in the application for insurance at $400.

The petition is in the usual form. The answer denies all the allegations of the petition except the issuance of the policy and the corporate existence of plaintiff in error— defendant below.

The answer contains the further defense, that in order to induce plaintiff in error to issue the policy of…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Kenyon v. City of IndianapolisIndiana Superior Court · 1872

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Farnum v. Phoenix InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  2. Home Insurance Co. of New York v. GibsonMississippi Supreme Court · 1894
  3. Hickerson & Co. v. Insurance CompaniesTennessee Supreme Court · 1896
  4. German-American Insurance v. EthertonNebraska Supreme Court · 1889
  5. Randall v. American Fire InsuranceMontana Supreme Court · 1891

2 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