O'Brien v. Ohio Insurance
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Muskegon. (Bussell, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the Court
Graves, O. J.
The plaintiff recovered on one of defendant’s policies and error is alleged.
■ First. We think the declaration was sufficient under the rule of court, [Circuit Court Pule 104] and that the contract of insurance was properly admitted. The objection of variance was not tenable.1
Second. At the date of this policy and down to the occurrence of the fire an incumbrance by mortgage of from three *133“to five hundred dollars rested on the property. The argument by the plaintiff that there was a lack of evidence on tills subject is not warranted. Among other items of proof the record contains…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Maher v. . Hibernia Insurance Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1876
- Gilbert v. North American Fire InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1840
- Killips v. Putnam Fire InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1871
- Walsh v. Washington Marine InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1865
- Phillips v. Protection InsuranceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1851
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by40 opinions
- Farnum v. Phoenix InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Bernhard v. Rochester German InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1906
- Commercial Union Assurance Co. v. State ex rel. SmithIndiana Supreme Court · 1888
- In re Williams' EstateMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
- Gristock v. Royal InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.