Legal Opinion

Minnock v. Eureka Fire & Marine Insurance

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided February 5, 1892PublishedCited by 10 opinions

Error to Livingston. (Newton, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtMcGrath, J.

This is an action upon a fire insurance policy.

With its plea of the general issue, defendant gave notice:

“1. That said plaintiff never had any valid or legal *238policy of insurance or contract of insurance with said company, and that said company was never legally hound to pay any sum of money on said contract or policy declared on by said plaintiff in his declaration.
“2. That said plaintiff has failed to make the necessary proof provided for and agreed to in said policy, and has failed to furnish the same to said company, as required in policy issued by said company.
“3. That said contract or…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Westchester Fire Insurance v. EarleMichigan Supreme Court · 1876
  2. Castner v. Farmers' Mutual Fire InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1883
  3. Hartford Fire Ins. v. DavenportMichigan Supreme Court · 1877
  4. Michigan State Insurance v. LewisMichigan Supreme Court · 1874
  5. Home Insurance v. CurtisMichigan Supreme Court · 1875

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Palmer Savings Bank v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1896
  2. Kahn v. Traders InsuranceWyoming Supreme Court · 1893
  3. Pratt v. DavisMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
  4. Equitable Fire Insurance v. Jefferson Standard Life InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1921
  5. Schilling v. Carl TownshipNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1931

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API