City Planing & Shingle Mill Co. v. Merchants', Manufacturers' & Citizens' Mutual Fire Insurance
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Mason. (Judkins, J.) Assumpsit on an insurance policy. Defendant brings error. Tbe facts are stated in tbe opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMorse, J.
The only question of real importance in this case is whether the mill of plaintiff, at the time it burned, had “ ceased to be operated" within the meaning of the policy of insurance sued upon.
The shingle-mill of plaintiff was situated on the bayou •of the Pere Marquette lake, at Ludington, about 125 feet east of a planing-mill owned and operated by plaintiff, from which it received its motive power, by a cable connecting both mills. The stock of logs for the use of the •shingle-mill was obtained from the pineries some 50 miles from Ludington, and were run down the Pere Marquette river. These…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Whitney v. . Black River Insurance CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
- Shackelton v. Sun Fire OfficeMichigan Supreme Court · 1884
- Stupetski v. Transatlantic Fire InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
- American Fire Insurance v. Brighton Cotton Manufacturing Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1888
3Cited by8 opinions
- Duval v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1927
- Tillis v. Liverpool & London & Globe InsuranceSupreme Court of Florida · 1903
- MacKintosh v. Agricultural Fire Ins. Co.California Supreme Court · 1907
- East Texas Fire Insurance v. KempnerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1896
- Central Montana Mines Co. v. Fireman's Fund InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1904
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.