Legal Opinion

Knop v. National Fire Insurance

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 5, 1894PublishedCited by 15 opinions

Error to Wayne. (Hosnier, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtMcGrath, C. J.

Action on a fire insurance policy issued by defendant upon plaintiff’s dwelling and household effects. *361It is insisted that under a clause in the policy which provided that the policy should be void “if the interest of the insured be other than unconditional and sole ownership/5 inasmuch as plaintiff held under a land contract, he could not recover. Plaintiff marU no written application, nor is it claimed that he null any representations as to ownership. It has been repeatedly held that such a condition will not invalidate the policy in such case. Farmers’ Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Fogelman, 35…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Farmers' Mutual Fire Insurance v. FogelmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1877
  2. Freehling v. KetchumMichigan Supreme Court · 1878

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Loventhal v. Home InsuranceSupreme Court of Alabama · 1895
  2. Arkansas Ins. Co. v. CoxSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1908
  3. Connecticut Fire Insurance v. Colorado Leasing, Mining & Milling Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1911
  4. Sisk v. Citizens' InsuranceIndiana Court of Appeals · 1897
  5. Jordan v. Hanover Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1909

10 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