Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Tennessee, Volume 106
Tennessee. Supreme Court, William Wilcox Cooke, Joseph Brown Heiskell, Benjamin James Lea, Jere Baxter, George Wesley Pickle, Frank Marian Thompson, Charles Theodore Cates, Charles Le Sueur Cornelius, Roy Hood Beeler
Soule, Thomas, and Winsor, 1901 - Law reports, digests, etc
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Other editions - View all
action adoption affirmed agent agreed alleged amount answer application appraisal assigned authority Bank bill bonds brought cars cause certificate Chancery Appeals charge Circuit Court cited claim Coal complainant condition Constitution construction contract corporation costs County Court of Chancery damages debt decree deed defendant demand dismissed districts duty easement effect entitled error evidence executed fact filed follows foreign further given ground Heis held holding injury Insurance Insurance Co interest issue Judge judgment jury land lease liability limitations loss matter Nashville objection opinion original owner paid parties payment person plaintiff Post premiums present proof proper purchase question Railroad reason received record res adjudicata road rule secured sold statement statute street suit taken Tenn Tennessee tion track train trial wife
Page 565 - This company shall not be liable beyond the actual cash value of the property at the time any loss or damage occurs, and the loss or damage shall be ascertained or estimated according to such actual cash value, with proper deduction for depreciation however caused, and shall in no event exceed what it would then cost the insured to repair or replace the same with material of like kind and quality...
Page 568 - No suit or action on this policy, for the recovery of any claim, shall be sustainable in any court of law or equity until after full compliance by the insured with all the foregoing requirements, nor unless commenced within twelve months next after the fire.
Page 556 - This company shall not be held to have waived any provision or condition of this policy or any forfeiture thereof by any requirement, act, or proceeding: on its part relating to the appraisal or to any examination herein provided for ; and the loss shall not become payable until sixty days after the notice, ascertainment, estimate, and satisfactory proof of the loss herein required have been received by this company, including an award by appraisers when appraisal has been required.
Page 527 - This entire policy, unless otherwise provided by agreement indorsed hereon or added hereto, shall be void if the insured now has or shall hereafter make or procure any other contract of insurance, whether valid or not, on property covered in whole or in part by this policy...
Page 475 - If the INTEREST of the assured in the property be any other than the entire, unconditional and sole ownership of the property for the use and benefit of the assured...
Page 566 - ... the sum for which this company is liable pursuant to this policy shall be payable sixty days after due notice, ascertainment, estimate, and satisfactory proof of the loss have been received by this company in accordance with the terms of this policy.
Page 473 - ... if the interest of the insured be other than unconditional and sole ownership; or if the subject of insurance be a building on ground not owned by the insured in fee simple...
Page 535 - It is merely stated that the owners allowed all persons who chose to do so, for recreation or for business, to go upon the waste without complaint; that they were not churlish enough to interfere with any person who went there. He must take the permission with Its concomitant conditions, and, it may be, perils.
Page 633 - Craig. in this State while such default or disability continues, nor until its authority to do business is restored by the Insurance Commissioner; Provided, however, that unless the ground for revocation or suspension relates only to the financial condition or soundness of the company, or to a deficiency in its assets...
Page 535 - The proprietors of the soil held out an allurement whereby the plaintiff was induced to come upon the place in question: they held out this road to all persons having occasion to proceed to the asylum as the means of access thereto. Could they have justified the placing an obstruction across the way, whereby an injury was occasioned to one using the way by their invitation? Clearly they could not.