Hughes v. Hartford Fire Insurance
Supreme Court of Georgia
Action upon insurance policy. Before Judge Wright. Chattooga superior court. ' September 15, 1914. The bill of exceptions assigns error upon a judgment granting a nonsuit. The action was by M. J. Hughes, suing for the use of S. A. Hale and J. Gr. Davis, upon a fire-insurance policy for an alleged loss covered by the policy. The insurance policy covered a certain building, and purported to “insure S..
Read the full summary
Action upon insurance policy. Before Judge Wright. Chattooga superior court. ' September 15, 1914. The bill of exceptions assigns error upon a judgment granting a nonsuit. The action was by M. J. Hughes, suing for the use of S. A. Hale and J. Gr. Davis, upon a fire-insurance policy for an alleged loss covered by the policy. The insurance policy covered a certain building, and purported to “insure S.. A. Hale for the term of-one year” from the date of the policy, and contained, among-others, the following provisions: “This entire policy, unless otherwise provided by agreement endorsed hereon,…
1Per curiam
The plaintiff, who was the holder of a bond for title from one who in turn held a bond for title from the holder of the legal title to the insured property, brought suit against the insurance company to recover for a total loss by fire of the property insured, the same being a house located on the property which formed the subject-matter of the sale. He alleged that the defendant had issued a policy of insurance to him; that loss had occurred, proof of loss had been made, etc. He sued for the • use of the original vendor and of his immediate vendor from whom he received a bond for title. His…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Dumphy v. Commercial Union Assur. Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1911
- Heyl v. Aetna InsuranceSupreme Court of Alabama · 1905
3Cited by2 opinions
- First National Bank v. Colonial Fire Underwriters InsuranceSupreme Court of Georgia · 1925
- Garnett v. Royal InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1919