Ranspach v. Teutonia Fire Insurance
Cases that cite this one
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- Rauch v. Michigan Millers' Mutual Fire-Insurance (Mich. 1902)
- Home Insurance v. North Little Rock Ice & Electric Co. (Ark. 1908)
- Kentucky Vermillion Mining & Concentrating Co. v. Norwich Union Fire Ins. Soc. (9th Cir. 1906)
- Blass v. Agricultural Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1897)
- Sutherland v. Eureka Fire & Marine Insurance (Mich. 1896)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
(after stating the facts). We think the court should have directed a verdict for the defendant. Plaintiff accepted the policy subject to all its terms and conditions. He knew, or must be held to have known, that the policy would be void if the house remained vacant beyond 10 days. Even if the agent had been told that the house was vacant at the time of the assignment, this did not make a new contract to keep the property insured beyond the 10 days of vacancy. The proposition is too plain to require further argument or citation of authorities.
Judgment reversed, and no new trial ordered.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.