Legal Opinion
Meily Co. v. London & L. Fire Ins.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania
Decided January 23, 1906No. 43PublishedCited by 5 opinions
At Raw. On motion for new trial.
1Opinion of the Court
HOLLAND, District Judge.
This was a suit on two fire insurance policies, one on the merchandise in the store for $2,000, and the other on the fixtures for $1,000. One ground of defense, and the only one of importance in considering the reasons for a new trial, was that George W. Meily, the president of the plaintiff company, was manager of the business, and that the fire was caused by his direct and willful act, with the knowledge of the owners, in purposely causing the fire to occur in order to defraud defendant in this case and other insurance companies that had issued policies upon a…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Kirkpatrick v. Allemannia Fire Insurance Co. of PittsburghAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1905
- Kirkpatrick v. Allemannia Fire InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1905
3Cited by5 opinions
- Kimball Ice Co. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1927
- Northern Assurance Co. v. Rachlin Clothes Shop, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1924
- Owl & Turtle, Inc., a Florida Corporation v. The Travelers Indemnity Company, a Foreign CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1977
- Sandersville Oil Mill Co. v. Globe & Rutgers Fire InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1924
- Matyuf v. Phoenix Insurance, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Washington County1933