Ross v. Hartford Fire Insurance

Where as here we are given a choice between 2 competing and possibly divergent lines of authority, one humane and the other callous, the choice is easy for me. Note how the Wilson Case (Wilson v. Hartford Livestock Insurance Co. [CCA 5], 193 F2d 752), relied upon by Justice Kelly as authority for affirmance, was considered in the presently quoted Butler Case.

This is a chancery case. We hear it de novo. I am convinced, as the chancellor said he was by “that *416preponderance of evidence,” that the horse should have been destroyed “for humane reasons.”* I am convinced also, as the chancellor said…