Schmitz v. Olsness Ex Rel. State

This controversy involves certain claims against' the state hail insurance department for injury to growing crops by hail in 1926. There is no question but that the crops in controversy were injured or destroyed by hail and that the owners are entitled to indemnity, provided the crops were covered by hail insurance. The defendant claims that the crops were not insured and that consequent ly there is no liability oil the part of the state hail insurance department. The controversy involves a construction of certain provisions of the state hail insurance act.

The hail insurance department was…