Legal Opinion

Stuyvesant Ins. v. Jacksonville Oil Mill

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided November 16, 1927No. Nos. 4847, 4848PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KNAPPEN, Circuit Judge.

Defendant in error, engaged at Jacksonville, Tex., in the manufacture of cotton oil and by-products (cake, meal, and linters), was insured by the respective plaintiffs in error against loss by fire as respects use and occupancy of buildings and machinery, in the aggregate sum of $23,400 ($10,000 in the Stuyvesant, and $13,-400 in the Globe & Rutgers), for a term of one year ending August 15, 1923. On October 16, 1922, the buildings and machinery were so largely destroyed by fire as to entirely prevent operation from the last-named date until the end of the then current…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hansen v. BoydSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
  2. Pugh v. Bluff City Excursion Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1910
  3. Glenwood Irr. Co. v. ValleryCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1918
  4. Stuyvesant Ins. Co. v. Jacksonville Oil MillCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1926

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Gotham Silk Hosiery Co. v. Artcraft Silk Hosiery Mills, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1945
  2. Eisenson v. Home Ins.District Court, N.D. Florida · 1949
  3. GS Holistic, LLC v. Smoke and VapeDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2024

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API