Legal Opinion

Latham Mercantile & Commercial Co. v. Harrod

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided June 10, 1905No. 14,162PublishedCited by 18 opinions

Error from Cowley district court; Carroll L. Swarts, judge.

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

William R. Smith, J.:

Harrod & Hanlen were agents for several fire-insurance companies. The Latham Mercantile and Commercial Company was a corporation, and for several years had placed its insurance business in the hands of these agents. In June, 1901, a policy issued on the goods of plaintiff in error *566by the German Insurance Company, a company authorized to do business in this state, was canceled by the latter. Thereupon the mercantile company wrote to Harrod & Hanlen requesting fire insurance for the amount covered by the canceled policy, stating that…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Bowditch v. New England Mutual Life InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1886
  2. Mason v. McLeodSupreme Court of Kansas · 1896
  3. Union Central Life Insurance v. ThomasIndiana Supreme Court · 1873
  4. Savings Bank of San Diego County v. BurnsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  5. Ganser v. Fireman's Fund InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1885

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Keith v. Schiefen-Stockham Insurance Agency, Inc.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1972
  2. Harrod v. Latham Mercantile & Commercial Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1908
  3. Rezac v. ZimaSupreme Court of Kansas · 1915
  4. Marshel Investments, Inc. v. CohenCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1981
  5. Winston-Norris Co. v. KingSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1926

13 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