Eagle Indemnity Co. v. Diehl
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The only assignment of error is that the court below denied the appellant’s motion for an instructed verdict in its favor, which motion, it is contended, should have been granted for want of proof of the insolvency or bankruptcy of the insured. Upon that issue there was the proof of the return of the sheriff that he had been unable to find any property, personal or real, belonging to the insured within the county of Multnomah, state of Oregon, where the insured had resided, and evidence that the county assessor • had searched the tax records of the county…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Patterson v. AdanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1912
- Merchants Mutual Automobile Liability Insurance v. SmartSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1925
- Finkelberg v. Continental Casualty Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1923
- Miller v. Union Indemnity Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1924
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Central Mut. Ins. Co. v. PippenCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1937
- Traders & General Ins. Co. v. DavisCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1940
- Central Mut. Ins. v. TartarCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1937