Marthinson v. North British & Mercantile Insurance
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Kent. (Montgomery, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMorse, J.
Plaintiffs recovered in the court below upon s, fire insurance policy, written by the defendant in favor of Barrington, Wilson & Co., upon mill property at Round lake, near the city of Cadillac, in the county of Wexford.
The defense gave notice, under the general issue, that *374there was an application and survey on file with its agents, which was a warranty of the assured, and made a part of the policy sued upon; and alleged a breach of the warranties therein contained^ and forfeitures of the policy, as follows:
“1. That the insured property was worth $12,000.
“2. That the said property was…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Titus v. . Glens Falls Insurance CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Carpenter v. Continental InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
- Mercantile Ins. v. HolthausMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
3Cited by36 opinions
- Brown v. Salt Lake CityUtah Supreme Court · 1908
- Hanover Fire Insurance v. B. C. Lewis & SonsSupreme Court of Florida · 1891
- Cleaver v. Traders' InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
- Hakes v. ThayerMichigan Supreme Court · 1911
- Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. of Cal. v. O'NeilSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.