Legal Opinion
Gristock v. Royal Insurance
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided July 28, 1891PublishedCited by 35 opinions
Rehearing, on application of defendant, of case reported in 84 Mich. 161. The facts are stated in the former opinion, which is affirmed.
1Opinion of the CourtG-rant, J.
The learned counsel for the defendant in their brief on this hearing insist that certain clauses of the policy were omitted in the former opinion (84 Mich. 161), and that similar clauses were never before passed upon in this Court. The first clause referred to is the one containing conditions as to mortgage. The policy provided that the company should not be liable—
“ If the property * * * is or shall become mortgaged * * * -without the assured's written notice to, and without the written permission of, this company indorsed on this policy."
In such case the policy was to be void. As stated .…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- O'Brien v. Ohio InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1883
- Crouse v. Hartford Fire InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
- Gristock v. Royal InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
3Cited by35 opinions
- J.C. Wyckoff & Associates, Inc. v. Standard Fire InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1991
- McElroy v. British America Assur. Co. of TorontoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1899
- Parmet Homes, Inc. v. Republic InsuranceMichigan Court of Appeals · 1981
- Industro Motive Corp. v. Morris Agency, Inc.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1977
- German American Insurance v. DarrinSupreme Court of Kansas · 1909
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.