Legal Opinion · Dissent

Michigan Shingle Co. v. State Investment & Insurance

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 24, 1892Published

Error to Muskegon. (Dickerman, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinions.

1DissentGrant, J.

This is a suit upon a policy of insurance dated September 2, 1890, and covering the same property as that in the case of Mich. Shingle Co. v. London & Lancashire Fire Ins. Co., 91 Mich. 441.

The policy is one known as, the “Michigan Standard,” being the one required by the Michigan statute. Its terms are identical in language with that of the London & Lancashire Fire Insurance Company. The warranty for the maintenance of 150 feet clear space is the same. The *399only difference between tbe facts of the two cases is that in this case the policy covered the lumber upon docks 3, 4, and 5, while in…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Rowley v. . the Empire Insurance Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1867
  2. Peoria Marine & Fire Insurance v. HallMichigan Supreme Court · 1864
  3. Franklin v. Atlantic Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1868
  4. McBride v. Republic Fire Ins.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1872
  5. Ætna Live Stock, Fire & Tornado Insurance v. OlmsteadMichigan Supreme Court · 1870

5 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