Latham Mercantile & Commercial Co. v. Harrod
Supreme Court of Kansas
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
- Bowditch v. New England Mutual Life InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1886
- Mason v. McLeodSupreme Court of Kansas · 1896
- Union Central Life Insurance v. ThomasIndiana Supreme Court · 1873
- Savings Bank of San Diego County v. BurnsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Ganser v. Fireman's Fund InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1885
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Keith v. Schiefen-Stockham Insurance Agency, Inc.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1972
- Harrod v. Latham Mercantile & Commercial Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1908
- Rezac v. ZimaSupreme Court of Kansas · 1915
- Marshel Investments, Inc. v. CohenCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1981
- Winston-Norris Co. v. KingSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1926
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.