Legal Opinion

O'Donnell v. Connecticut Fire Insurance

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided November 28, 1888PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Error to Monroe. (Kinne, J.) Assumpsit on insurance policy. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Sherwood, O. J.

This suit is brought to recover for a loss sustained by the destruction of plaintiffs' property by fire, which was insured, or is claimed to have been insured, in the defendant company, under policy issued to the plaintiffs, and numbered 1,032. The property described in the policy of insurance is as follows, with the amount of insurance thereon:

*2“ §1,000 upon their stock of staves and heading contained in sheds and open yard; $200 upon frame barrel-house; $200 upon cooper stock therein, — all situated in yard east of and adjacent to their stave and heading mill, situate at…

2Cited by6 opinions

  1. Kleis v. Niagara Fire InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1898
  2. Zimmerman v. WhiteleyMichigan Supreme Court · 1903
  3. Connecticut Fire Insurance v. KinneMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
  4. Cape v. Plymouth Congregational ChurchWisconsin Supreme Court · 1903
  5. Law Offices of Jeffrey Sherbow v. Fieger & Fieger PcMichigan Supreme Court · 2021

1 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