Leithauser v. Hartford Fire Ins.

Sixth Circuit

Leithauser v. Hartford Fire Ins.

149 F.2d 152, 31 Ohio Op. 285, 1945 U.S. App. LEXIS 2570

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedApril 30, 1945

DocketNo. 9937

StatusPublished

This text of 149 F.2d 152 (Leithauser v. Hartford Fire Ins.) 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

Leithauser v. Hartford Fire Ins., 149 F.2d 152, 31 Ohio Op. 285, 1945 U.S. App. LEXIS 2570 (6th Cir. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case came on to be heard upon the record, briefs and oral argument of counsel.

And it appearing that without the knowledge of the insurer and in violation of the terms of the policy, a chattel mortgage existed upon the insured property at the time the policy was issued and at the time of' the fire;

And it appearing that Section 9583, General Code of Ohio, does not preclude the assertion by the appellee of the defense that a chattel mortgage was outstanding on the insured structure, Sun Fire Office of London v. Clark, 53 Ohio St. 414, 42 N.E. 248, 38 L.R.A. 562; Webster v. Dwelling House Ins. Co., 53 Ohio St. 558, 42 N.E. 546, 30 L.R.A. 719; 53 Am.St.Rep. 658; Germania Fire Ins. Co. v. Werner, 76 Ohio St. 543, 81 N.E. 980, 12 L.R.A.,N.S., 456, 118 Am.St. Rep. 891.

It is ordered that the judgment be, and it hereby is, affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This case came on to be heard upon the record, briefs and oral argument of counsel.

And it appearing that without the knowledge of the insurer and in violation of the terms of the policy, a chattel mortgage existed upon the insured property at the time the policy was issued and at the time of' the fire;

And it appearing that Section 9583, General Code of Ohio, does not preclude the assertion by the appellee of the defense that a chattel mortgage was outstanding on the insured structure, Sun Fire Office of London v. Clark, 53 Ohio St. 414, 42 N.E. 248, 38 L.R.A. 562; Webster v. Dwelling House Ins. Co., 53 Ohio St. 558, 42 N.E. 546, 30 L.R.A. 719; 53 Am.St.Rep. 658; Germania Fire Ins. Co. v. Werner, 76 Ohio St. 543, 81 N.E. 980, 12 L.R.A.,N.S., 456, 118 Am.St. Rep. 891.

It is ordered that the judgment be, and it hereby is, affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 F.2d 152, 31 Ohio Op. 285, 1945 U.S. App. LEXIS 2570, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leithauser-v-hartford-fire-ins-ca6-1945.