Legal Opinion

Bibend v. Liverpool & London Fire & Life Insurance

California Supreme Court

Decided April 15, 1866PublishedCited by 14 opinions

Appeal from the District Court, Fourth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. The insurance company made no defense. The other facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court, Cübbey, C. J.:

Wollstein & Hears, partners in the trade of merchants, made application to the firm of Wegener & Shoenbar to indorse for their accommodation their promissory notes, amounting to fifteen thousand dollars, whereupon the latter firm consented to do so on condition that the stock in trade of the former firm should be insured through the agency of Wegener & Shoenbar, who should hold the policies, when effected, as collateral security for their liability as such indorsers, and also for any amount in which Wollstein & Hears should become indebted to them. To this…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Pierce v. RobinsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
  2. Canfield v. MongerNew York Supreme Court · 1815

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Bentley v. Standard Fire InsuranceWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1895
  2. Bergson v. Builders Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1869
  3. State of California v. DayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
  4. Blackburn v. St. Paul Fire & Marine InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1895
  5. College National Bank v. MorrisonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929

9 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