Seitz v. Bolles

Michigan Supreme Court

Seitz v. Bolles

247 N.W. 168, 262 Mich. 241, 1933 Mich. LEXIS 864

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 2, 1933

DocketDocket No. 129, Calendar No. 37,017.

StatusPublished

This text of 247 N.W. 168 (Seitz v. Bolles) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Seitz v. Bolles, 247 N.W. 168, 262 Mich. 241, 1933 Mich. LEXIS 864 (Mich. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Potter, J.

Plaintiff sued defendant William Bolles in assumpsit. A writ of garnishment issued to Fidelity & Guaranty Fire Corporation. It disclosed liability for loss under an insurance policy. Dorothy Bolles, wife of defendant William Bolles, intervened and claimed the fund in controversy. The trial court sustained her claim. Plaintiff appeals. Defendant William Bolles owned land in Monroe county. He desired to plat and sell it. To carry out his plan, the property was deeded to the Commerce Guardian Trust & Savings Bank of Toledo, Ohio, in trust. Subsequently a new trustee was appointed. Dorothy Bolles, wife of William Bolles, the principal defendant, bought a lot from the trust company and built a house thereon. She sold this house and lot on land contract to George D. and Jeanette T. Wuerfel. The Wuerfels defaulted in payments to be made on the contract. Notice of forfeiture of land contract was given. Before Dorothy Bolles recovered possession of the premises, the house burned. The land contract purchasers had insured the house and contents in Fidelity & Guaranty Fire Corporation, loss, if any, payable to Dorothy B. Bolles, George D. Wuerfel, and Jeanette Wuerfel, as their interest might appear. Defendant *243 William Bolles joined with the insured iii making proof of loss under the policy. He verbally claimed the lot was deeded by him to the trust company by mistake. His signature was included on the proof of loss by the adjuster for the insurance company to shut him off from making any claim under the policy. After the adjustment, plaintiff sued William Bolles and garnisheed the insurance company. The trial court held the proceeds of the insurance policy belonged to Dorothy B. Bolles.and George D. Wuerfel and Jeanette Wuerfel his wife, that William Bolles had no insurable interest in the property, and plaintiff was not entitled to recover in the garnishment proceedings. We think the trial court was correct.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

McDonald, C. J., and Clark, Sharpe, North, Fead, Wiest, and Btitzel, JJ., concurred.

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

Potter, J.

Plaintiff sued defendant William Bolles in assumpsit. A writ of garnishment issued to Fidelity & Guaranty Fire Corporation. It disclosed liability for loss under an insurance policy. Dorothy Bolles, wife of defendant William Bolles, intervened and claimed the fund in controversy. The trial court sustained her claim. Plaintiff appeals. Defendant William Bolles owned land in Monroe county. He desired to plat and sell it. To carry out his plan, the property was deeded to the Commerce Guardian Trust & Savings Bank of Toledo, Ohio, in trust. Subsequently a new trustee was appointed. Dorothy Bolles, wife of William Bolles, the principal defendant, bought a lot from the trust company and built a house thereon. She sold this house and lot on land contract to George D. and Jeanette T. Wuerfel. The Wuerfels defaulted in payments to be made on the contract. Notice of forfeiture of land contract was given. Before Dorothy Bolles recovered possession of the premises, the house burned. The land contract purchasers had insured the house and contents in Fidelity & Guaranty Fire Corporation, loss, if any, payable to Dorothy B. Bolles, George D. Wuerfel, and Jeanette Wuerfel, as their interest might appear. Defendant *243 William Bolles joined with the insured iii making proof of loss under the policy. He verbally claimed the lot was deeded by him to the trust company by mistake. His signature was included on the proof of loss by the adjuster for the insurance company to shut him off from making any claim under the policy. After the adjustment, plaintiff sued William Bolles and garnisheed the insurance company. The trial court held the proceeds of the insurance policy belonged to Dorothy B. Bolles.and George D. Wuerfel and Jeanette Wuerfel his wife, that William Bolles had no insurable interest in the property, and plaintiff was not entitled to recover in the garnishment proceedings. We think the trial court was correct.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

McDonald, C. J., and Clark, Sharpe, North, Fead, Wiest, and Btitzel, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 N.W. 168, 262 Mich. 241, 1933 Mich. LEXIS 864, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seitz-v-bolles-mich-1933.