Slinkard v. Manchester Fire Assurance Co.
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare ■County and from an order denying a new trial. Wheaton A.Cray, Judge. ' The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
CHIPMAN, C.
Action on insurance policy for loss of a combined harvester by fire. Plaintiff had judgment, from which and from an order denying motion for new trial defendant appeals.
Defendant issued its policy to plaintiff to cover a period of three months from June 25, 1896, at noon, “against all direct loss or damage by fire, except as hereinafter provided . . . , while located and contained as described herein, and not elsewhere, to wit, iioelve hundred dollars on combined harvester,. Haines-Houser, makers, while in use in Tulare County, Galif.” et cetera.
The court found that at the time the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Astor v. MerrittSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- McKenzie v. Scottish Union & National InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Mawhinney v. Southern InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Benicia Agricultural Works v. Germania Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1893
- Snow v. . Columbian Insurance Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1872
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Koshland v. Columbia InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1921
- Allen v. Home Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1901
- Steil v. Sun Insurance OfficeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
- Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Aachen & Munich Fire InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1906
- Bastian v. British American Assurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1904
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.