Legal Opinion

Rommel v. New Brunswick Fire Insurance Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided February 5, 1943No. 33,302PublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Julius J. Olson, Justice.

Plaintiff prevailed in her action to recover for a fire loss to her farm dwelling and its contents. Defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding or a new trial was denied, and it appeals.

Defendant is a foreign corporation duly authorized to do business in this state. Its activities include insurance against losses by fire or windstorm to rural as well as urban property. Its general agent for the state is E. M. Neely Company of St. Paul. E. H. Schacht, under the title of “E. H. Schacht Agency,” was duly licensed as its agent at Eed Wing and Eochester and, under that…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Bodine v. . Exchange Fire Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1872
  2. Todd v. German American InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1907
  3. Koivisto v. Bankers & Merchants Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1921
  4. Pastucha v. RothMichigan Supreme Court · 1939
  5. Arff v. Star Fire InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1890

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Morrison v. SwensonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1966
  2. Harris v. Meyers (Et Al.)Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
  3. Leonard v. Norman Vinitsky Residuary Trust (In Re Jolly's, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Minnesota · 1995
  4. Norby v. Bankers Life Co. of Des Moines, IowaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1975
  5. Julien v. Spring Lake Park Agency, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1969

23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API