Hale v. Michigan Farmers' Mutual Fire-Insurance
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Sanilac; Beach, J. Assumpsit by Dayton Hale against the Michigan Farmers’ Mutual Fire-Insurance Company of St. Clair and Sanilac counties on a policy of insurance. There was judgment for defendant on a verdict directed by the court, and plaintiff brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, J.
This is an action on a policy of insurance. Judgment in favor of defendant was based upon a directed verdict. Plaintiff brings error.
The material facts are that plaintiff made a written application to become a member of defendant company, which application was accepted and a policy of insurance issued. A promissory note of the plaintiff, given on the 27th day of October, 1903, and due on the 1st day of December, 1903, for #11.80, the same being the estimated advance assessments for the period of the policy, namely,*454three years, was executed at the same time and as a part of ¿he application.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- McIntyre v. Michigan State InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1883
- Dewey v. Toledo, Ann Arbor & North Michigan Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1892
- Robinson v. Continental InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
- Fell v. McHenrySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1862
3Cited by5 opinions
- Hayworth v. Philadelphia Life InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
- North River Ins. Co. v. ThomasCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1924
- Wells v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaMichigan Supreme Court · 1927
- Jones v. Aetna InsuranceAppellate Court of Illinois · 1922
- Lane v. New York Life Ins. Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1928