Legal Opinion

Hassett v. Pennsylvania Fire Insurance

Washington Supreme Court

Decided January 11, 1929No. 21375. Department OnePublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBeals, J.

This is an action upon a policy of insurance, written by defendant, insuring, among other things, against fraudulent disposal or concealment of an automobile. Plaintiff recovered judgment in the sum of $273.50, from which defendant appeals.

The facts giving rise to this litigation are as follows:

■ On July 10, 1925, respondent sold, by contract of conditional sale, a Ford automobile to A. Peterson and Lee D. Maltby for the sum of $447.25, of which $135 was paid in cash, the balance of $312.25 to be paid in monthly installments. Possession of the automobile was delivered to the vendees on the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Delanty v. Yang Tsze InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1923
  2. Hefner v. Great American InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1923
  3. Cushing v. Williamsburg City Fire InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1892
  4. Commercial Credit Co. v. National Credit Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1927
  5. Knutzen Auto Co. v. North British & Mercantile InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1923

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Pacific Queen Fisheries v. L. Symes, Pacific Queen Fisheries v. Atlas Assurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1962
  2. Kelly v. Empire Fire and Marine Ins. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1964

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

Powered by the Exa API