Michigan Shingle Co. v. State Investment & Insurance
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Muskegon. (Dickerman, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinions.
1Opinion of the CourtDurand, J.
This case was brought to recover upon an insurance policy, by which the defendant had insured the plaintiff upon certain lumber, lath, and shingles, owned by it, or held in trust or on commission, or sold but not delivered, piled on its mill docks Nos. 3, 4, and 5, at Muskegon, Mich. Among other things, the policy contained a clause as follows:
“Warranted by the assured that a continuous clear place of 150 feet shall hereafter be maintained between the property hereby insured and any wood-working or manufacturing establishment, and that said space shall not be used for handling or piling of…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Rowley v. . the Empire Insurance Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1867
- Plumb v. . Cattaraugus Co. Mutual Insurance Company.New York Court of Appeals · 1858
- Miller v. Mutual Benefit Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1871
- Peoria Marine & Fire Insurance v. HallMichigan Supreme Court · 1864
- Franklin v. Atlantic Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1868
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Parsons, Rich & Co. v. LaneSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
- R. W. McCormick & Son v. Royal InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
- Shotliff v. Modern Woodmen of AmericaMissouri Court of Appeals · 1903
- Hawkeye Casualty Co. v. HolcombMichigan Supreme Court · 1942
- Gardner v. League Life InsuranceMichigan Court of Appeals · 1973
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.