Legal Opinion

Hilton v. Federal Insurance

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 23, 1931No. Docket No. 502PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBarnard, P. J.

On or about June 1, 1927, the defendant insurance company issued to one Farwell, as owner of the sloop “California”, a policy of insurance covering that ship. On or before November 13, 1927, Farwell sold the ship to this plaintiff, a bill of sale being executed to the plaintiff’s wife and the testimony showing that the purchase price was paid out of their community funds. At the same time, the policy of insurance was assigned by Farwell to the plaintiff. The policy in question contained the following clause: “It is also agreed that this insurance shall be void in case this policy or the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Wheaton v. North British and Merchantile InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  2. Morris v. Standard Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1922
  3. Peninsular & O. S. S. Co. v. Atlantic Mut. Ins.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1911
  4. Western Assur. Co. v. Southwestern Transp. Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1895
  5. Benninger v. Phoenix InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Reliance Insurance Company v. The Yacht Escapade Ex the Thor II Etc., Reliance Insurance Company v. Howard BondCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1960
  2. Rose v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1964
  3. McAdam v. State National InsuranceDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2014
  4. Los Angeles Mutual Insurance v. CawogCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1973
  5. Reliance Insurance Company v. The Yacht Escapade Ex the Thor II Etc., Reliance Insurance Company v. Howard BondCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1960

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

Powered by the Exa API