Legal Opinion

Crouse v. Hartford Fire Insurance

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 24, 1890PublishedCited by 14 opinions

Error to Oakland. (Moore, J.) Assumpsit on an insurance policy. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtMorse, J.

This is an action on an insurance policy issued by the defendant to one Hernán W. Clark, Febru*250ary 3, 1886, and renewed twice, to wit, February 8, 1887, and February 1, 1888.

The policy covered a two-story frame building, occupied for general store and post-office purposes at Highland Station, at the sum of $1,000, with $400 additional on store and post-office furniture and fixtures therein. The fire occurred April 25, 1888, and a loss of $1,336.95 was claimed in the proofs of loss upon the building, and $373.50 on furniture and fixtures. After said fire, and on June 14, 1888, with the consent…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Brown v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1887
  2. Cleaver v. Traders' InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1887
  3. Temmink v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
  4. Kitchen v. Hartford Fire InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
  5. Baker v. Ohio Farmers' InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1888

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Gold Issue Mining & Milling Co. v. Pennsylvania Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1916
  2. Tubbs v. Dwelling-House InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
  3. Gristock v. Royal InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
  4. Russell v. Detroit Mutual Fire InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
  5. Shotliff v. Modern Woodmen of AmericaMissouri Court of Appeals · 1903

9 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