Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
5 opinions for “Jenny R. Minnich”
American Bonding Co. v. State ex rel. Whislerpublic domain
Hadley, J. This was an action brought by the State, on the relation of David Whisler, receiver of the late copartnership of Lawrence & Company, against appellants, Elizabeth H. Mills and the American Bonding Company of Baltimore, for recovery upon a bond executed by said Elizabeth H. Mills, surviving partner of the firm of Lawrence & Company, as principal, and said American Bonding Company of Baltimore, as surety
Kiefer v. Klinsickpublic domain
Dissenting Opinion. Lotz, J. The facts of this case as disclosed by the evidence are briefly as follows: In August, 1885, the appellee, Jennie Klinsick, was a married woman, the wife of one William Klinsick. She was sole owner of about $1,300 in money which she had realized from property inherited by her. Her husband was a druggist by profession, and was desirous of engaging in that business.
Skinner v. Spannpublic domain
Jordan, J. This is an appeal prosecuted by appellants Effie C. Skinner and Georgiana Smith, from a judgment in the Probate Court of Marion County, Indiana, whereby the last wills of James W. Brown and Agnes C. Brown, deceased, were construed and interpreted by that court. The proceedings were instituted b.y appellee Thomas H. Spann, the executor of the will of Agnes C. Brown. All persons concerned in the interpretation of either
Kiefer v. Klinsickpublic domain
McCabe, J. This case comes here from the Appellate Court under the proviso of section 1362,R. S. 1894, regulating the jurisdiction thereof, with a recommendation of a majority of that court that a certain decision hereinafter named, affecting the questions involved in this appeal, be overruled. The facts of this case as disclosed by the evidence are briefly as follows: In August, 1885, the ap
Columbian Mut. Life Assur. Soc. v. Harringtonpublic domain
* Headnotes 1. Pleading, 31 Cyc., p. 564; 2. Insurance, 33 C.J., section 824; 3. Mutual Benefit Insurance, 29 Cyc., p. 244; 4. Insurance, 32 C.J., section 234; 5. Mutual Benefit Insurance, 29 Cyc., p. 14; 6. Mutual Benefit Insurance, 29 Cyc., p. 249; On representations as to health of insured when he has an undiscovered disease, see note in 53 L.R.A. 193, 15 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1277; 14 R.C.L., pp. 1070-1071; 3 R.C.L. Supp., p. 336; 4 R.C.L.