Woods v. Atlantic Mutual Insurance
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. It is the province of the court to determine upon the legal effect of testimony; and an instruction that, admitting the testimony to be true, the plaintiff cannot recover, is in the nature of a demurrer to evidence, and may be given. (Harris v. Woody, 9 Mo. 112; Lee v. David, 11 Mo. Ill, and cases above cited.)
1Opinion of the CourtAdams, Judge
This was an action on a policy of insurance issued by the defendant to Edward P. Tesson, who originally brought the suit, and becoming bankrupt, it was afterwards prosecuted in the name of the plaintiff as assignee in bankruptcy. It was an insurance against fire on a distillery building and machinery. The description of the building embodied in the policy was : “ his three or four story distillery building and machinery in the same, not running, no fire in or about, situated entirely detached, on the bank of the Mackinaw river, in the town of Eorneyville, Woodford county, Illinois, valued at…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Tesson v. Atlantic Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1867
3Cited by11 opinions
- Groll v. TowerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- Holter Lumber Co. v. Fireman's Fund InsuranceMontana Supreme Court · 1896
- Herriman v. Chicago & Alton RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887
- Schultze v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1888
- Smith v. HutchinsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.