Legal Opinion

Seessel v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided April 6, 1918PublishedCited by 4 opinions

FROM SHELBY. Appeal from the! Chancery Court of Shelby County. —Hon. F. H. Heiskell, Chancellor.

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Fentress

The bill in this cause seeks a recovery against the defendant upon a policy of indemnity issued by it to, the complainant. The chancellor rendered a decree for the latter, and the company has appealed to this Court.

The defendant, in consideration of the premium paid, issued to Seessel its policy or indemnity bond, whereby it agreed to indemnify him, to the extent of $5,000 against loss he might sustain, on account of personal injuries suffered by any one while upon the elevator operated in his butcher shop and store in Memphis. The contract also provides that the defendant shall pay for^…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Rochester Mining Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1910
  2. Pacific Coast Casualty Co. v. General Bonding & Casualty Ins.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1917

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Ferry v. National Motor UnderwritersAppellate Court of Illinois · 1927
  2. Materazzi v. Commercial Casualty InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1935
  3. Reserve Insurance Company v. McPeakDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1966
  4. Schneider v. Fort Dearborn Casualty Underwriters, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1930

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API