Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hayward v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided May 29, 1942No. 33,077Published

1DissentHolt, Justice

I dissent. True, appellant procured from Hayward the subrogation assignment when it settled for the damage to his car under the terms of its policy. But' when later Hayward sued Vollbrecht, whose negligence damaged the car and inflicted serious personal injuries on Hayward, Yollbrecht alone could defend on the ground that the former’s cause of action had been split.

Subrogation rests on equity principles. Appellant claims $279.52 of the judgment Hayward obtained against Vollbrecht. The burden was upon it to prove that the judgment includes damages awarded for the car. The trial court’s finding…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Hamilton Fire Insurance v. GregerNew York Court of Appeals · 1927
  2. Shawnee Fire Insurance v. CosgroveSupreme Court of Kansas · 1911
  3. Washtenaw Mutual Fire Insurance v. BuddMichigan Supreme Court · 1919
  4. Flor v. BuckSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1933
  5. Mitchell v. DaviesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892

2 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