Legal Opinion
Holbrook v. Baloise Fire Insurance
California Supreme Court
Decided July 16, 1897No. Sac. No. 233PublishedCited by 5 opinions
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Joaquin County. Joseph H. Budd, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Britt, C.
Action on a policy of fire insurance which contained a clause against double insurance as follows: “ This entire policy, unless otherwise provided by agreement .... shall be void if the insured now has or shall hereafter make or procure any other contract of insurance .... on property covered by this policy.” The defense relied on is that the insured committed a. breach of this condition by obtaining additional insurance without defendant’s consent.
Plaintiffs loaned a sum of money to one J. O. D. McMahan. In the course of the negotiation of such loan it was agreed that plaintiffs…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Stockton Combine Harvester & Agricultural Works v. Glen's Falls Co.California Supreme Court · 1893
- Moore v. Hanover Fire InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
- Williamson v. Michigan Fire & Marine InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1893
- Johnson v. American InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
- Gillett v. Liverpool & London & Globe InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1888
3Cited by5 opinions
- Reynolds v. London & Lancashire Fire Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1900
- Meyer v. National Fire InsuranceNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1936
- Hill v. International Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1924
- Di Mauro v. Aetna InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1933
- Sharp v. Scottish Union & National InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902