Minnesota Supreme Court, 1883

Wiebeler v. Milwaukee Mechanics' Mutual Insurance

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided June 14, 1883 · Gileillan

30 Minn. 464; 16 N.W. 363; 1883 Minn. LEXIS 193 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

O’Brien é Wilson, for appellant., . R. A. Inoin, for respondent.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1934, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Schmidt v. Agricultural Ins. Co. (Minn. 1934)
Schmidt v. Agricultural Insurance (Minn. 1934)
Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. v. R. E. Parsons Electric Co. (8th Cir. 1932)
Green v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. (Miss. 1930)
Austin Fire Ins. Co. v. Adams-Childers Co. (Tex. App. 1921)
Eifert v. Hartford Fire Insurance (Minn. 1921)
Orient Insurance Company v. Wingfield (Tex. App. 1908)
Terre Haute & Indianapolis Railroad v. Clem (Ind. 1890)

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

Gileillan, C. J.

Action on a contract to insure. From the admissions in,.the pleadings and-On. the trial, and from the evidence, the referee was justified in finding, as he did find, that plaintiff held defendant’s policy (about to expire) insuring his dwelling for'three *465years for the sum of $250, and that, before it expired, the agent of defendant, on its behalf, agreed orally with plaintiff to renew it, increasing the amount on the dwelling to $400, and extending it so as to cover the furniture in the amount.of $250, and the bam to the amount of $100. Nothing being said to the contrary, the presumption would be that the renewal was to be for the same length of time and the same rate of premium as in the original policy, and the referee found the fact accordingly. This makes a good contract to insure for the term of three years. Defendant claims that the contract was within the statute of frauds and void. There is included in the statute “every agreement that by its terms is not to be performed within one year from the making thereof.” This, of course, does not include an agreement that may, in accordance with its terms, be fully performed and ended within the year; as where the thing to be done depends on a contingency that may happen within the time. This is the case with' a contract to insure, where the insurance is to commence within the year. ■

Judgment affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.