Legal Opinion
Houston Oil & Transport Co. v. Ætna Ins.
District Court, S.D. Texas
Decided November 21, 1929No. 167PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HUTCHESON, District Judge.
That the policy was issued, the fire occurred, and the loss has been sustained, is conceded. It is tbe contention of-tbe respondent that there can be no recovery, because, as claimed by it, contrary to the warranty of-the assured, the vessel was not at the time of the fire in charge of a competent watchman.
Libelant answers this contention with the claim;(1) That the warranty referred to was not a part of the contract of insurance as actually signed, because there had been substituted for the general form a special form covering fire only, the terms of the risk on…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Union Fish Co. v. EricksonSupreme Court of the United States · 1919
- Sweaney & Smith Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine InsuranceIdaho Supreme Court · 1922
- Hanover Fire Insurance v. GustinNebraska Supreme Court · 1894
- New York & P. R. S. S. Co. v. Ætna Ins.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1913
- Lancaster v. Southern Insurance Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1910
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Fish v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1967
- Klock v. Allstate InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1962
- Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. Trinity Universal Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1964