Legal Opinion

Lindner v. Hine

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided February 6, 1891PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Error to Bay. (Cobb, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings ei’ror. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtChamplin, C. J.

Schucker & Hopp were the owners of a stock of liquors, and gave Gustave Hine. a chattel mortgage thereon. Afterwards they obtained a policy of insurance ixpon the stock from the People’s Insurance Company, the loss, if any, payable to Hine, as his mortgage interest might appear. A fire occurred, which consumed the property insured. The plaintiffs had been the attoi’neys of Schucker & ‘Hopp in some litigation which they had before that time had, and the plaintiffs made out the proofs of loss. The insux-ance company denied liability, and Schucker & Hopp thereupon assigned their claim under the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Weeks v. Wayne Circuit JudgesMichigan Supreme Court · 1889

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Stewart v. Auditor GeneralMichigan Supreme Court · 1937

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API