Legal Opinion

Coryell v. Old Colony Insurance

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided April 5, 1929No. 26547Published

1DissentGood, J.

I am unable to concur in the majority opinion. The facts disclosed by the record show that the fire was hostile and not friendly, and plaintiff was therefore entitled to recover.

2Concurring in part, dissenting in partRedick, District Judge

Heard before Goss, C. J., Rose, Dean, Good, Thompson, Eberly and Day, JJ. Thompson, J.

This is an action based on certain fire insurance policies issued to the plaintiff, appellant, by the defendants, appellees, respectively, to recover $1,000, a reasonable attorney’s fee and costs, for loss and damage caused by fire, smoke, and soot, to the property covered by such policies. The issue was as to whether the fire, which…

3Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Connecticut Fire Insurance v. JearyNebraska Supreme Court · 1900
  2. O'Connor v. Queen Insurance Co. of AmericaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1909
  3. Pappadakis v. Netherlands Fire & Life InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1926
  4. Cabbell v. Milwaukee Mechanics InsuranceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1924
  5. Farmers Union Grain Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1922

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API