Legal Opinion

Faughner v. Manufacturers' Mutual Fire Insurance

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 28, 1891PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Error to Gratiot., (Daboll, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.

Plaintiffs sued to recover a loss on an alleged contract of insurance. No policy was issued, and the question is whether the proofs established the contract. The court below left the question to the jury, who found for the plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs applied to one Woodard to effect an insurance upon their property. Woodard was a manufacturer, and did some insurance business. He was not the agent for the defendant. He was an insurance broker. He testified that he had no other arrangement with the defendant than to send on applications for parties desiring to be insured. ' He took and forwarded…

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. Michigan Pipe Co. v. Michigan Fire & Marine InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
  2. Shawnee Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. McClureSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
  3. Ten Broek v. JansmaMichigan Supreme Court · 1910

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

Powered by the Exa API