Legal Opinion
Putze v. Saginaw Valley Mutual Fire-Insurance
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided April 7, 1903No. Docket No. 170; Docket No. 133Published
Error to St. Clair; Atkinson, J. Assumpsit by Gustave Putze against the Saginaw Valley Mutual Fire-Insurance Company on a policy of insurance. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error.
1Opinion
ON REHEARING.
Moore, J.
This case was heard, and an opinion filed, which is reported supra. Afterwards a rehearing was ordered. A reference to the opinion which was filed will make a long statement of facts unnecessary here. The question in doubt is what construction shall be given to the word “due,” as used in the statute. The claim of plaintiff is stated as follows:
“The policy became ‘due' as soon as completed proofs of loss were filed, but not ‘payable,' under the terms of the policy, until 60 days thereafter. In the statute the word ‘due' is used, and the word ‘payable' is not used. We…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Hay v. . Star Fire Insurance CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1879
- Steen v. . Niagara Fire Insurance CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
- Wilkinson v. First National Fire Insurance Co. of WorcesterNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
- Ames v. . N.Y. Union Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1856
- Mayor of New York v. Hamilton Fire InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1868
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.