Goldstein v. Franklin Mutual Fire Insurance
49 N.E. 115, 170 Mass. 243, 1898 Mass. LEXIS 188
Opinion
The facts disclosed in this case certainly furnish strong evidence of a fraudulent overvaluation by the plaintiff, and would have well warranted a finding to that effect, but we cannot say that the court was bound, as matter of law, so to find.
Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Goldstein v. Franklin Mutual Fire Insurance, 49 N.E. 115, 170 Mass. 243, 1898 Mass. LEXIS 188 (Mass. 1898).
49 N.E. 115 (Goldstein v. Franklin Mutual Fire Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Gechijian v. Richmond Insurance
25 N.E.2d 191 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1940)
Shapiro v. Security Insurance
152 N.E. 370 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1926)