Fuhrman v. Sun Insurance Office
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Presque Isle; Emerick, J. Assumpsit ■ by Gustave H. Fuhrman against the Sun Insurance Office of London upon a policy of fire insurance. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtBrooke, J.
(after stating the facts). Defendant first claims that the plaintiff should not be permitted to recover because, at the time the policy was written, he had no insurable interest in the lumber, for the reason he had been paid in full and accepted his money.
As nearly as we are able to determine from a careful examination of the record, it seems to have been the claim of Fortier, representing the Michigan Manufacturing & Lumber Company, that the plaintiff had been paid in full according to the scale sheets of McComb, the scaler employed by Fortier. The total amount of hemlock settled for…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Gristock v. Royal InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
- Hoose v. Prescott InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
- Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co. v. Northern Assurance Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1905
- Guest v. New Hampshire Fire InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1887
- Knop v. National Fire InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1894
3Cited by3 opinions
- Alma State Savings Bank v. Springfield Fire & Marine Ins.Michigan Supreme Court · 1934
- Young v. California InsuranceIdaho Supreme Court · 1935
- National Mutual Insurance v. BalesIndiana Court of Appeals · 1923