McCarvel v. Phenix Insurance
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Murray county, P. E. Brown, J., denying a motion for a new trial, after ■a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $708.38.
1Opinion of the CourtCanty, J.
The defendant insurance company issued a policy ■of fire insurance to plaintiff, insuring him against loss by fire on his stock of merchandise, contained in his store building, situated .at Lime Creek, Minnesota, Defendant also issued to him another policy on his store building, which policy is not here involved. But this action was tried with another action on the latter policy. •-On October 2, 1894, while these policies were in force, a loss occurred, and plaintiff on that day sent the following notice of the loss to defendant at Chicago, duly dated, addressed, and signed by him: “I have…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Davis Shoe Co. v. Kittanning Ins.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
3Cited by4 opinions
- Bailey v. Grand Forks Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1909
- Zeitler v. National Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- Klein v. FrerichsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- Krenik v. WestermanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1937