Legal Opinion

Mishiloff v. American Central Insurance

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided March 6, 1925PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, C. J.

The motion to correct is granted substantially as set forth in reasons of appeal fourteen, fifteen, seventeen, twenty-three, twenty-four, twenty-six and thirty-one, and the corrections incorporated in the statement above. Paragraph thirty-five, that Stowell was not the agent of plaintiff, is stricken out as not established; he was to a limited degree his agent. Plaintiff also alleges error in failing to strike out paragraph thirty-seven, reciting that the policy of insurance was issued under a mutual mistake, etc. The trial court adjudged that the policy be reformed to comply with the…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Hearne v. Marine InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
  2. Syndicate Ins. v. BohnCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1894
  3. Bernhard v. Rochester German InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1906
  4. Parsons, Rich & Co. v. LaneSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
  5. Allen v. German American InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1890

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Novella v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1972
  2. Lopinto v. HainesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1981
  3. Jenkins v. Indemnity Insurance Co. of North AmericaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1964
  4. Ursini v. GoldmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1934
  5. Fidelity Phenix Fire Ins. Co. of New York v. RaperSupreme Court of Alabama · 1941

16 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