Legal Opinion

Barnett v. London Assurance Corp.

Washington Supreme Court

Decided April 15, 1926No. 19667. Department TwoPublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMain, J.

This action was brought upon an insurance policy to recover for loss sustained by reason of the theft of an automobile. The cause was tried to the court without a jury and resulted in findings of fact, conclusions of law and a judgment sustaining a recovery in the sum of $450. From this judgment, the defendant appeals.

On February 10, 1923, the respondent, in the city of Chicago, purchased a Ford touring car and paid therefor the sum of $450. Thereafter he added accessories to the extent of something over $100. The car was used by the respondent at the place where it was purchased, in…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Savarese v. Hartford Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1924
  2. Pallady v. BeattySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1905
  3. Downs Farmers Warehouse Ass'n v. Pioneer Mutual InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1905

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Reznick v. Home Insurance Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1977
  2. Skaff v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty CompanyDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1968
  3. Scarola v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaNew York Court of Appeals · 1972
  4. Horton v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1977
  5. Grimm v. Prudence Mutual Casualty CompanySupreme Court of Florida · 1971

23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API