Opinion

Royal Ins. Co., Limited v. Martinolich

179 F.2d 704 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 6, 1950

Full text

*705 PER CURIAM. As the appellant did, in Home Insurance Co. of New York v. Sherrill, 5 Cir., 174 F.2d 945, this appellant comes here complaining solely of the insufficiency of the evidence to support a verdict and judgment that plaintiff was entitled to a recovery under the policy. Here, as there, appellant urges that the testimony of the plaintiff, that before any water damage took effect, the damage to the full amount insured had already been done by the wind, is not only refuted by all the other testimony, but made incredible by the undisputed facts, so that it cannot support the verdict. Here, as there, we hold that the question upon the record was a question of fact for the jury, and that the judgment must be Affirmed.

Notice

Freecase is a legal research tool. It does not determine whether a case is good law and does not provide legal advice.

Metadata

Status: Published
Author
Judges: Hutcheson, McCORD, Per Curiam, Russell
Cluster ID: 224267

Citations

179 F.2d 704
1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 2257

Cited by

Donald W. Cumbest and American National Insurance Company v. Phoenix of Hartford Insurance Company, No. 30639 Summary Calendar. Rule 18, 5 Cir. See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. Of New York, 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I
Fifth Circuit · Mar 12, 1971
Donald W. Cumbest and American National Insurance Company v. Phoenix of Hartford Insurance Company
Fifth Circuit · Mar 12, 1971
Firemen's Insurance Co. of Newark, NJ v. Schulte
Mississippi Supreme Court · Jul 10, 1967
Continental Insurance v. Kouwenhoven
Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 31, 1966