Tischler v. Cal. Farmers' Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtRoss, J.
1. Appellant claims that, upon the authority of Gilmore v. The Lycoming F. I. Go., 55 Cal. 123, defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings should have been granted. *179Even if the policy involved in this case was similar to that involved in that, the decision there would not be authority for sustaining the motion here in question But in Gilmore v. The Lycoming Company, the application of the insured was expressly made a part of the policy, and therefore constituted a part of the contract ; and it having affirmatively appeared from the complaint in that case that all of the terms of the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Gilmore v. Lycoming Fire Ins. Co.California Supreme Court · 1880
- Cassacia v. Phœnix InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
3Cited by8 opinions
- Henderson v. Massachusetts Bonding & InsuranceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1935
- Rossini v. Saint Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.California Supreme Court · 1920
- Liverpool London Globe Ins. Co. v. CargillSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1914
- Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. v. McWhirterCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1896
- Smith v. Mutual Cash Guaranty Fire Ins.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1907
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.