Smith v. Royal Ins.
District Court, N.D. California
1Opinion of the Court
KERRIGAN, District Judge.
The plaintiff is suing upon a policy of insurance in the sum of $15,000 upon his “leasehold interest” in certain real property on the shore of the town of Belvedere. The company refused payment of the policy on the ground that the plaintiff had no lease of the property and no insurable interest therein, which was the sole defense relied on at the time of the trial.
The nature of plaintiff’s tenure of the property is most unusual and can only be understood in the light of a full statement of the facts. Plaintiff was the owner of a valuable house of considerable beauty…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Lumber Underwriters of NY v. RifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Berry v. American Central Insurance Co. of St. LouisNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Harvey Coal & Coke Co. v. DillonWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1905
- Harrison v. PepperMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1896
- In Re BarnettCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1926
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Lee v. North Dakota Park ServiceNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1977
- College of the Virgin Islands v. Vitex Manufacturing Co.Municipal Court of The Virgin Islands · 1965
- Smith v. Royal Ins.District Court, N.D. California · 1939
- Smith v. Royal Ins.District Court, N.D. California · 1941