Schenectady Varnish Co. v. Automobile Insurance Co. of Hartford
New York Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtHeffernan, J.
The complaint contains two causes of action, one for the reformation of the policy by substituting the name of the plaintiff as the assured and owner of the car in place of the defendant W. Howard Wright, and to recover under the policy as reformed for the alleged theft of the car by one Hunt. The second count is based upon an assignment by the defendant Wright to the plaintiff of any cause of action in his favor by reason of the alleged theft under the same policy.
There is no serious dispute concerning the facts. Prior to the month of July, 1923, the defendant W. Howard Wright and his wife…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Van Vechten v. American Eagle Fire InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1925
- McCourt v. . PeopleNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
- Parr v. LoderAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1904
- Rush v. Boston InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1914
- Callahan v. London & Lancashire Fire InsuranceAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1917
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- People v. ColavecchioAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1960
- D. R. Paskie & Co. v. Commercial Casualty InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1928
- Merl v. Standard InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1940