Court Opinion

ID: 9868568
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 18:41:43.060445+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:51.634041
License: Public Domain

On Petition to Rehear.
Counsel for the respective parties have displayed great energy and ingenuity in collecting* the cases bearing upon the question involved, all of which we have carefully considered, and which strengthen rather than weaken the conclusions announced in the original opinion.
Practically all of the recent decisions support the rule which we adopted. Some of these cases; with dates de*442cisions were rendered, are as follows: Gunn v. Palatine Ins. Co., Nov. 10, 1927 (Ala.), 114 So., 690; Western Assurance Co. v. White, July 12, 1926 (Ark.), 286 S. W., 804, 48 A. L. R. 349; Niagara Fire Ins. Co. v. Mullins, Feb., 1927 (Ky.), 291 S. W., 760; Ballard v. Ins. Co., Jan. 5, 1921, 237 Mass., 34, 129 N. W., 290; Commercial Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Crawford, Jan. 5, 1927 (N. Y. Sup. Ct.), 219 N. Y. Supp., 103; Ohio Farmers Ins. Co. v. Toledo, Oct. 14, 1924 (Ohio), 38 A. L. R. 1118; Palmetto Fire Ins. Co. v. Fansler, Oct., 1925 (Va.), 129 S. E., 727.
The petition to rehear will be denied.