Legal Opinion
Curtin v. Phenix Insurance
California Supreme Court
Decided April 19, 1889No. 12698PublishedCited by 5 opinions
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtWorks, J.
Action on a policy of fire insurance. Defense that all of the premium had not been paid. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.
The policy was issued on June 30, 1884, and was for a term of five years. No part of the premium was required to be paid in cash on the issuance of the policy. It provided for the giving of a promissory note, which was given as follows:—
“ $190.
“ On the first day of December, 1884, for value received, I promise to pay to the Phenix Insurance Company of Brooklyn, New York (at their office in San Francisco, California), $190.50 in payment of premium on…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Union Central Life Insurance v. JonesIndiana Court of Appeals · 1897
- Carlock v. Phœnix InsuranceIllinois Supreme Court · 1891
- McCullough v. Home Insurance Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1906
- Lenz v. German Fire Ins.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1898
- Palmer v. Continental Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1900