Mercantile Credit & Guaranty Co. v. Littleford Bros.

Hamilton Circuit Court

Mercantile Credit & Guaranty Co. v. Littleford Bros.

9 Ohio Cir. Dec. 846

DecidedJuly 15, 1899

StatusPublished

This text of 9 Ohio Cir. Dec. 846 (Mercantile Credit & Guaranty Co. v. Littleford Bros.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hamilton Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mercantile Credit & Guaranty Co. v. Littleford Bros., 9 Ohio Cir. Dec. 846 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Smith, J.

One of the principal questions arising in this case is as to the construction to be placed on a contract made by the plaintiff in error to indemnify the defendants in error against losses arising from uncollectible debts. This is to be held as a contract of insurance, and the rule applies to it which does to other policies of insurance, viz., that all ambiguities in such policy are to be given that construction which is most favorable to the assured. There certainly can be no question but the policy in this case is on the point at issue between these parties most ambiguous, so much so as to induce one to believe that it was designed.

In view of the rule we have stated, we are of the opinion that the construction placed on this contract by Judge Wright when ruling on a demurrer to a part of the answer of the defendant company, which is before us, was correct, ánd therefore that his rulings as to the demurrer, evidence, etc., were in accordance with that view and were not erroneous. Nor do we see error in other rulings in the case prejudicial to the plaintiff in error, and the judgment will therefore be affirmed with costs, but without penalty.'

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

Smith, J.

One of the principal questions arising in this case is as to the construction to be placed on a contract made by the plaintiff in error to indemnify the defendants in error against losses arising from uncollectible debts. This is to be held as a contract of insurance, and the rule applies to it which does to other policies of insurance, viz., that all ambiguities in such policy are to be given that construction which is most favorable to the assured. There certainly can be no question but the policy in this case is on the point at issue between these parties most ambiguous, so much so as to induce one to believe that it was designed.

In view of the rule we have stated, we are of the opinion that the construction placed on this contract by Judge Wright when ruling on a demurrer to a part of the answer of the defendant company, which is before us, was correct, ánd therefore that his rulings as to the demurrer, evidence, etc., were in accordance with that view and were not erroneous. Nor do we see error in other rulings in the case prejudicial to the plaintiff in error, and the judgment will therefore be affirmed with costs, but without penalty.'

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 Ohio Cir. Dec. 846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mercantile-credit-guaranty-co-v-littleford-bros-ohcircthamilton-1899.