Manchester Fire Assur. Co. v. Abrams
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Washington. On February 12, 1894, the defendant in error, Robert Abrams, entered into a contract with one E. E. Bulson, by the terms whereof the said Bulson was to take possession of the farm of the defendant in error for a period of two years, the defendant in error to furnish all seed, teams, farming utensils, and the labor of one man, and the said Bulson to pay for all the other labor necessary for…
Read the full summary
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Washington. On February 12, 1894, the defendant in error, Robert Abrams, entered into a contract with one E. E. Bulson, by the terms whereof the said Bulson was to take possession of the farm of the defendant in error for a period of two years, the defendant in error to furnish all seed, teams, farming utensils, and the labor of one man, and the said Bulson to pay for all the other labor necessary for putting in, harvesting, and threshing the crops, and for all other labor performed on the farm, and certain other expenses,…
1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, Circuit Judge
The assignments of error principally relied upon by the plaintiff in error are: That the court erred iu instructing the jury as follows :
“Fur flier than that, I will say that a-man is the sole owner of property when he has it in his possession, and has an unconditional right to the possession of- it, and the unconditional right to sell and dispose of it for his own benefit, and to appropriate and retain the entire proceeds of the sale of it, if he sees fit to sell it. When the conditions are such that he has got the property, and got a right to sell it, and to take the money, and appropriate…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Syndicate Ins. v. BohnCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1894
- Hough v. City Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1860
- Imperial F. Ins. v. DunhamSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888
- Weed v. London & Lancashire Fire InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- Hanover Fire Insurance v. BohnNebraska Supreme Court · 1896
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Parsons, Rich & Co. v. LaneSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
- Raulet v. Northwestern Nat'l Ins. Co. of MilwaukeeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
- Glens Falls Insurance Co. v. MichaelIndiana Supreme Court · 1905
- Sharp v. Scottish Union & National InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Dunne v. Phoenix InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.