Legal Opinion

Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. v. Norwich Pharmacal Co.

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided April 4, 1927No. 249PublishedCited by 61 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHand, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). The defendant’s first point is that the plaintiff could with reasonable diligence have discovered the defalcations of Kenyon earlier than it did, and that for this reason it had not fulfilled the condition of the policy requiring it to give notice within ten days after discovery. It argues that all the documents which it eventually used to make up the tabulation and prove the loss, were in its possession for more than two years before June, 1924, and it was always under a duty to watch its employees. Further that, if it failed in exercising such diligence,…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Indianapolis & St. Louis Railroad v. HorstSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
  2. Newton v. Consolidated Gas Co. of NYSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
  3. Straus v. Victor Talking Mach. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1924
  4. Mayor, Etc., of N.Y. v. . SEC. Ave. R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1886
  5. Myers v. Moore-Kile Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1922

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

3Cited by61 opinions

  1. Palmer v. HoffmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
  2. Palmer v. AH Robins Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1984
  3. United States v. BeckerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1933
  4. Loper v. MorrisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  5. United States v. CotterCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1932

56 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