Legal Opinion

Buffalo Porcelain Enameling Corp. v. London Assurance Corp.

New York Supreme Court

Decided December 24, 1929Published

1Opinion of the CourtHinkley, J.

This is a motion by defendant for leave to serve a supplemental answer setting forth, generally, the following facts, to wit, that since the joinder of issue herein a judgment was rendered against plaintiff of no cause of action in a similar action brought by plaintiff upon the same fire loss against an insurance company which was coinsurer with defendant. In other words, that the two policies varied only in name, date and amount, and that such judgment is res adjudicóla in this action as to the vital provisions of any fire insurance policy upon the premises. For the jury failed to find that…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Booth v. . PowersNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
  2. Haverhill v. International Railway Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1926
  3. Haverhill v. International Railway CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1927
  4. Duignan v. PawlikowskiNew York Supreme Court · 1929

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

Powered by the Exa API