Commercial Union Assurance Co. v. Creek Cotton Oil Co.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Error from District Court, Creek County; Lucien B. Wright, Judge. Action by the Creek Ootton Oil Company against the Commercial Union Assurance Company, Ltd., of London, Eng. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtMcNEILL, J.
This action was commenced by the Creek Cotton Oil Company to recover for loss on an insurance policy issued by the deféndant company on the following property to wit: ‘Wotton baled, and unbaled, ginned and unginned, seed cotton and cotton seed.” Fire damáged .a .certain amount of cotton, including 5ffi bales of what is commonly called “linters." The only controversy is whether the fifty-one bales of cotton commonly called “lint-ers”' comes within the property described in the policy. There is practically no difference in the evidence regarding what “lint-ers'’ are. In ginning cotton, the seed…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Sherman v. Pacific Coast Pipe Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
- Soudan Planting Co. v. StevensonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
- Sanditen v. Allied Refining Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1921
- Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. ClevelandSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
- Houssels v. Coe HamptonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1913
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Grayhill Drilling Co. v. Superior Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1952
- Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. RichterSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1935
- Swift & Co. v. ColvertSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1927
- Wilmeth v. LeeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1957
- School District. No. 62 v. School District No. 17Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1930
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.