Hartford Fire Insurance Company v. Frank Koenig and Peter Koenig, Trading and Doing Business as Koenig Bros.

Sixth Circuit

Hartford Fire Insurance Company v. Frank Koenig and Peter Koenig, Trading and Doing Business as Koenig Bros.

199 F.2d 370, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 3347

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedOctober 17, 1952

Docket11481

StatusPublished

This text of 199 F.2d 370 (Hartford Fire Insurance Company v. Frank Koenig and Peter Koenig, Trading and Doing Business as Koenig Bros.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hartford Fire Insurance Company v. Frank Koenig and Peter Koenig, Trading and Doing Business as Koenig Bros., 199 F.2d 370, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 3347 (6th Cir. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Jr'c'xs" i^urv-iívivi.

' ■ This cause has been heard on the record and on the briefs and oral arguments of the attorneys for the parties;

And it appearing that, for the reasons stated in the opinion of the district judge in overruling a motion for a new trial, no error inhered in the refusal of the district judSe to direct the jury to return a verdict Bor defendants, there being no substantial evidence that the appellees penpetrated any fraud in connection with their claitns for fire losg and damage; ^ ^ ^ coart properly submitted t0 the jury under clear and correct instructions the issue in the case concerning the amount justly recover-able by appellees from the appellant insuranee companies, and that there was substan *371 tial evidence to support the verdict of the jury upon which the judgment was entered;

And it appearing further that no error is shown in the conduct of the trial by the District Court, its judgment is affirmed; and it is so ordered.

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

Jr'c'xs" i^urv-iívivi.

' ■ This cause has been heard on the record and on the briefs and oral arguments of the attorneys for the parties;

And it appearing that, for the reasons stated in the opinion of the district judge in overruling a motion for a new trial, no error inhered in the refusal of the district judSe to direct the jury to return a verdict Bor defendants, there being no substantial evidence that the appellees penpetrated any fraud in connection with their claitns for fire losg and damage; ^ ^ ^ coart properly submitted t0 the jury under clear and correct instructions the issue in the case concerning the amount justly recover-able by appellees from the appellant insuranee companies, and that there was substan *371 tial evidence to support the verdict of the jury upon which the judgment was entered;

And it appearing further that no error is shown in the conduct of the trial by the District Court, its judgment is affirmed; and it is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 F.2d 370, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 3347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartford-fire-insurance-company-v-frank-koenig-and-peter-koenig-trading-ca6-1952.