Lake v. Columbus Insurance
Ohio Supreme Court
This was a suit upon a policy of insurance, reserved from the Supreme Court of Franklin county, for decision in bank, upon the following agreed statement of facts: “ That on November 11, a. d. 1839, the defendants, in due form, executed the policy of insurance to the plaintiff, which is made part of the agreed case, and marked A. That on November 9,1839, the plaintiff put on board the schooner ‘Buffalo,’ Rosetty, master, 5,254 and 13-GO bushels of wheat, as per bill of…
Read the full summary
This was a suit upon a policy of insurance, reserved from the Supreme Court of Franklin county, for decision in bank, upon the following agreed statement of facts: “ That on November 11, a. d. 1839, the defendants, in due form, executed the policy of insurance to the plaintiff, which is made part of the agreed case, and marked A. That on November 9,1839, the plaintiff put on board the schooner ‘Buffalo,’ Rosetty, master, 5,254 and 13-GO bushels of wheat, as per bill of ^lading, marked B, which bill of lading is made part of the agreed facts in this case. That said schooner — on board of…
1Opinion of the CourtBirchard, J.
This suit is upon a policy of insurance, and is submitted to the court on the papers, written evidence, and an *57agreed statement as to certain facts. It presents two questions. What loss does the policy cover? And what is stranding?
That part of the policy under which the controversy arises, is in the following words : “ Touching the adventures and perils which the said insurance company are contented to *bear, and take upon them in this voyage, they are of the seas, fire, enemies, pirates, assailing thieves, restraints and detainments of all kings, princes, or people, of what nature or policy…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Washington Iron Works v. St. Paul Fire & Marine InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1924