Capitol Insurance v. Bank of Pleasanton
Supreme Court of Kansas
Motion for Rehearing. The facts are stated in Insurance Co. v. Bank of Pleasanton, 48 Kas. 397, et seq., and in the opinion herein, filed January 7, 1893.
1Per curiam
In the opinion handed down, (Insurance Co. v. Bank of Pleasanton, 48 Kas. 397,) the by-laws attached to the insurance policy were not considered a part thereof, and the case was disposed of without any reference thereto. It is now urged that the validity of the by-laws and policy were never questioned in the district court; and also that, as the insurance company is a mutual one, the assured was bound to know and abide by the by-laws, whether attached to the policy or not. Assuming that the by-laws were binding on the assured, we will notice the objections presented in the original briefs to…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Sullivan v. Phenix InsuranceSupreme Court of Kansas · 1885
- Capitol Insurance v. Bank of PleasantonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1892
- Home Insurance v. WoodSupreme Court of Kansas · 1891
3Cited by5 opinions
- Lattner v. Federal Union InsuranceSupreme Court of Kansas · 1945
- Hulen v. National Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Kansas · 1909
- Union Trust Co. v. Provident Washington InsuranceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1899
- Hartford Fire Insurance v. McCarthySupreme Court of Kansas · 1904
- Queen Insurance Co. of America v. StraughanSupreme Court of Kansas · 1904