Legal Opinion
Parrish v. Rosebud Mining & Milling Co.
California Supreme Court
Decided October 16, 1903No. S.F. No. 2631PublishedCited by 14 opinions
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtBeatty, C. J.
The plaintiff is assignee of the Lion Insurance Company of London for collection, and sues upon a bond in the sum of $7,125, executed to the company by W. S. MeCorniek (doing business as McCornick & Co.) and another defendant, McCornick alone was served and defended, judgment passed in his favor, and plaintiff appeals from the judgment and an order denying him a new trial. The condition of respondent’s bond was: “That if the Rosebud Mining and Milling Company of Colorado, or its assigns, shall in all things stand to and abide by and well and truly keep and perform the covenants and conditions…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Indiana Insurance v. HartwellIndiana Supreme Court · 1890
- Hahn v. Guardian Assurance Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1893
- Abraham v. North German Ins. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Iowa · 1889
- Packard v. Dorchester Mutual Fire InsuranceSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1885
3Cited by14 opinions
- Marsh & McLennan of California, Inc. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
- Solomon v. Federal InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- Lyon v. United ModernsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
- Morris McGraw Wooden Ware Co. v. German Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburg, Pa.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1910
- California Reclamation Co. v. New Zealand InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1913
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.