Cary Manufacturing Co. v. Acme Brass & Metal Works
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
The following opinion was filed May 1, 1934:
Rosenberry, C. J.
The contention of the plaintiff company briefly, stated is that it is necessary in the continued operation oUthe plaintiff's business that it have the benefit of the proceeds of the policies of insurance for the purpose of restoring the plant so -as to make the same useful; that it' has as it alleged restored the same; that the proceeds of the policies, particularly that part thereof which it claims became due by reason of the destruction of the equipment, *589should be so applied; that to do otherwise would work hardship upon the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Williamson v. Michigan Fire & Marine InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1893
- Lichtstern v. ForehandWisconsin Supreme Court · 1923
- Connors v. AaronWisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
3Cited by7 opinions
- Property Owners Insurance Co. v. HackIndiana Court of Appeals · 1990
- Disrud v. ArnoldCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1992
- Risken v. ClaymanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1987
- Behnke v. RadtkeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1974
- Hemad Enterprises, Inc. v. Endurance American Specialty InsuranceDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 2015
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.