Weiner v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
1Per curiam
The complaint was held to be bad upon its face. The action is by assured against insurer, for recovery, under the policy, for the destruction by fire of plaintiff’s jewelry. The peculiar cause of the destruction raises the question of law involved. The plaintiff’s wife “ for the purpose of safe keeping and protecting * * * [the jewelry] from burglars during her absence from the home, placed the said jewelry [of plaintiff] into a velvet handbag and deposited same in the stove of the household * * * and while the said jewelry * * * was in the stove * * * the wife * * * through inadvertence…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Reliance Insurance Co. v. NamanTexas Supreme Court · 1928
- National Life Ins. Co., Etc. v. Hood's Adm'rCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1936
- Mode, Ltd. v. Fireman's Fund InsuranceIdaho Supreme Court · 1941
- Salmon v. Concordia Fire Ins. Co. of MilwaukeeLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1935
- Youse v. Employers Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Kansas · 1951
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.