Legal Opinion

Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Ingram

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided March 24, 1927No. 5 Div. 970PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtThomas, J.

Plaintiff declared on notes for insurance premium, and defendant answered with no consideration, non est factum, fraud in procurement of notes, and set-off ; issue was joined on these pleas.

Plaintiff’s agent testified that defendant signed the notes in his presence, gave cheek for first installment; that the policy was not delivered by him to defendant; that such policy was issued and witness saw it several days later in the office of the agent of the company in Montgomery, and did not know of his own knowledge whether defendant received the policy. The amount of reasonable attorney’s fee was…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. McMillan v. AikenSupreme Court of Alabama · 1920
  2. Phœnix Insurance v. MoogSupreme Court of Alabama · 1884
  3. Allen v. Standard Ins.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1916
  4. Carmelich v. MimsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1889
  5. Rose v. LewisSupreme Court of Alabama · 1908

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Kyser v. Southern Building & Loan Ass'nSupreme Court of Alabama · 1932
  2. Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. GarnerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
  3. State Building & Loan Ass'n v. BradwellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1933
  4. First Nat. Bank of Wetumpka v. CulverhouseAlabama Court of Appeals · 1935

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

Powered by the Exa API