Perry v. London Assur. Corp.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western Division of the Western District of Washington. The pleadings of the parties present the questions to be decided. From those pleadings these, among other, facts appear: The action was upon three certain policies of insurance, all of which were issued in pursuance of an arrangement made between the parties in the month of Juno, 1904, when the first of the policies was issued.
Read the full summary
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western Division of the Western District of Washington. The pleadings of the parties present the questions to be decided. From those pleadings these, among other, facts appear: The action was upon three certain policies of insurance, all of which were issued in pursuance of an arrangement made between the parties in the month of Juno, 1904, when the first of the policies was issued. Each of the policies contain, among others, these conditions: “This entire policy shall he void if the insured has concealed or misrepresented, in writing…
1Opinion of the CourtRoss, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). Although the plaintiff in error, in his reply to the defendant’s answer filed in the court below, denied that the property insured was covered by the mortgage foreclosed in the suit of the Tacoma Mill Company against Perry, his pleading admitted that the property covered by the policies in suit was taken from him under and by virtue of the process of the court in the foreclosure suit as property embraced by the decree of foreclosure, and that he recovered .possession from the court’s officer by giving a supersedeas bond in connection with an appeal to this…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Northern Assurance Co. v. Grand View Building Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1902
- Perry v. Tacoma Mill Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1907
3Cited by1 opinion
- Atlas Assur. Co. of London v. HurstCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1926