De Rossett Hat Co. v. London Lancashire Fire Ins.
Tennessee Supreme Court
FKOM HAMILTON. Appeal from the Chancery Court of Hamilton County to the Court of Civil Appeals, and by certiorari to the Court of Civil Appeals from tlie Supreme Court.— T. M. McCoNNEll, Chancellor.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice BuchaNAN
The hat company, January 7, 1914, filed separate hills against eleven insurance companies, including the one above named, to recover on account of a single fire loss the separate sum from each company for which each was liable under a policy in force at the date of the fire., Each of the bills prayed for a decree for the sum named in the face of the policy, and interest thereon, from December 6, 1913, together with the additional sum of twenty-five per cent, of the amount of the principal demand. The twenty-five per cent, demand was based on chapter 141, Acts of 1901; but, before the causes…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- McElya v. HillTennessee Supreme Court · 1900
- Crisman v. McMurrayTennessee Supreme Court · 1901
3Cited by28 opinions
- Palmer v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1986
- John Riad v. Erie Insurance ExchangeCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 2013
- Third Nat. Bank v. American Equitable Ins. Co. of New YorkCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1943
- Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. BurtonTennessee Supreme Court · 1934
- Walker v. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1977
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.