Thornton v. Security Ins.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Middle Pennsylvania
At Law. Action on fire insurance policy. On rule for new trial.
1Opinion of the Court
ARCHBALD, District Judge.
It was provided by the policy in suit that “if fire occurs the insured shall * * * protect the property from further damage, and forthwith separate the damaged from the undamaged personal property, and put it in the best possible order.” There was evidence from which the jury might have found that this was not observed by the plaintiff in the present instance, and the court was therefore requested to charge in the defendant’s third point that, if he failed in this duty, he was not entitled to recover. The court affirmed the duty, but denied the result claimed,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Oshkosh Match Works v. Manchester Fire Assurance Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1896
- Wolters v. Western Assurance Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
3Cited by11 opinions
- Gipps Brewing Corp. v. Central Manufacturers' Mut. Ins.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1945
- Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Empire Coal Min. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1929
- NEW YORK UNDERWRITERS'FIRE INS. CO. v. Malham & Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1928
- Farmers Mercantile Co. v. Farmers Ins.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1913
- Peerless Hosiery Co. v. Northern Ins. Co.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1952
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.