Brighton Manuf'g Co. v. Reliance Ins.

U.S. Circuit Court

Brighton Manuf'g Co. v. Reliance Ins.

33 F. 235, 1887 U.S. App. LEXIS 2925

United States Circuit Court·Decided July 25, 1887·Published

Opinion

Blodgett, J.

The facts in this case are the same as in the preceding case; and the defenses set up that the risk was increased with the knowledge of the assured, of which no notice was given to the defendant; that the assured allowed the building to become vacant and unoccupied, without notice Lo¡the [236] defendant; and that, being a manufacturing establishment, it ceased to be operated without the consent of the defendant. I have already passed upon these defenses in the preceding case, and therefore the finding will be for the plaintiff.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Blodgett, J.

The facts in this case are the same as in the preceding case; and the defenses set up that the risk was increased with the knowledge of the assured, of which no notice was given to the defendant; that the assured allowed the building to become vacant and unoccupied, without notice Lo¡the [236] defendant; and that, being a manufacturing establishment, it ceased to be operated without the consent of the defendant. I have already passed upon these defenses in the preceding case, and therefore the finding will be for the plaintiff.

Brighton Manuf'g Co. v. Reliance Ins., 33 F. 235, 1887 U.S. App. LEXIS 2925 (uscirct 1887).

Pincite

33 F. 235 (Brighton Manuf'g Co. v. Reliance Ins.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.