Maxwell v. Royal Insurance

225 A.D. 725

Opinion

Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event, upon the ground that the burden of proving that the building in question was vacant or unoccupied rested upon respondent (Perretta v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 106 Misc. 91; affd., 188 App. Div. 983), and upon the record that question was fairly one of fact for the jury. All concur. Present — Hubbs, P. J., Clark, Sears, Taylor and Sawyer, JJ.

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

Maxwell v. Royal Insurance, 225 A.D. 725 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1928).

225 A.D. 725 (Maxwell v. Royal Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Perretta v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance
188 A.D. 983 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1919)
Perretta v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance
106 Misc. 91 (New York Supreme Court, 1919)