Legal Opinion
E. D. Baird & Son v. Kaskaskia Live Stock Insurance
Supreme Court of Iowa
Decided November 11, 1924PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPreston, J.
— 1. The main argument o£ appellant, and its main contention on this appeal, is that plaintiff may not maintain the action as against this defendant because there is no privity of contract between- plaintiff and defendant.
Plaintiff first took out a policy of insurance with the Farmer’s Live Stock Insurance Company, of Des Moines, insuring the bull against loss as stated. Later, and within the term of the policy, that insurance company entered into a reinsurance contract as to certain of its livestock business, with the defendant, of Shelby-ville, Illinois. The contract was approved by the…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Getchell & Martin Lumber & Manufacturing Co. v. Peterson & SampsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1904
- Johannes v. Phenix Insurance Co. of BrooklynWisconsin Supreme Court · 1886
- Barnes v. Hekla Fire Ins.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
- Ruohs v. Traders Fire InsuranceTennessee Supreme Court · 1903
- Weil v. Federal Life InsuranceIllinois Supreme Court · 1914
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Winneshiek Mutual Insurance Association v. RoachSupreme Court of Iowa · 1965
- Commercial Standard Insurance v. HaleyDistrict Court, S.D. Iowa · 1968
- Lincoln Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. MeansCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1936
- Midwest Office Technology, Inc. v. American Alliance Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1989
- Hawkeye Chemical Company, and Mutual Boiler & MacHinery Insurance Company v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, and Oil Insurance AssociationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1975
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.