Legal Opinion

Cobbs v. Fire Ass'n

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided February 2, 1888PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Error to Wexford. ( Fallass, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts aré sufficiently stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtChamplin, J.

The action in this case is assumpsit upon a policy of insurance, which was issued upon the same prop, erty as that covered by a policy issued by the North British & Mercantile Insurance Company, and which came before this Court for consideration in the case of Marthinson v. North British & Mercantile Insurance Co., 64 Mich. 372 (31 N. W. Rep. 291). The same defense is interposed in this case as was in that, and the testimony in this case tends more strongly to prove a waiver of the defense of forfeiture *464of the policy than appeared in the record in the Marthinson Case.

A waiver may be proved…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Home Insurance v. Baltimore Warehouse Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1876
  2. Miller v. Life InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
  3. Marthinson v. North British & Mercantile InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1887

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Cleaver v. Traders' InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
  2. Merrill v. PackerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1890
  3. Soper v. Pontiac, Oxford & Northern RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
  4. Burns v. Michigan Manufacturers' Mutual Fire-InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1902
  5. Cleaver v. Traders' Ins. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Michigan · 1889

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

Powered by the Exa API