Legal Opinion

Hardware Mut. Casualty Co. v. Higgason

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided December 16, 1939PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Chambliss

The Casualty Company, plaintiff-in-error, challenges recoveries in these six consolidated cases, in favor of defendants-in-error on an automobile liability policy issued to W. C. Wright, doing business at Shelbyville, Tennessee, as Wright Motor Company. Defendants-in-error had recovered judgments aggregating more than $10,000, the limit of the policy, against Wright in actions brought to recover for personal injuries suffered in an automobile collision with a car driven by one Malone, who was at the time an employee in an automobile garage and sales business owned by Wright at Murfreesboro,…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Baldwin Motor Co.Texas Commission of Appeals · 1931
  2. Insurance Co. of North America v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1917
  3. Oehme v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1930
  4. Haverty Furniture Co. v. FoustTennessee Supreme Court · 1939
  5. State Automobile Mut. Ins. v. Connable-Joest, Inc.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1939

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

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. Petition of YoungbloodTennessee Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Clark Motor Co. v. United Pacific InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1943
  3. Transamerica Insurance Group v. Stephen George Beem and Wife, Joan Beem, Transamerica Insurance Group v. William Douglas BoothCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1981
  4. Southern Fire and Casualty Company v. CooperTennessee Supreme Court · 1956
  5. Hardware Mut. Casualty Co. v. WendlingerCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1944

21 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