Legal Opinion

Boosel v. Agricultural Insurance

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 17, 1935No. Appeal, 219PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Keller, P. J.,

We affirm the order of the court below granting a new trial, but approve of only two of the three reasons assigned by the court.

The plaintiff, Walter E. Boosel, brought this action in assumpsit against Agricultural Insurance Company to recover for a loss by fire under a policy of insurance. The insurance company put in two inconsistent defenses. The first need not be referred to at much length. The agent who countersigned and issued the policy was the authorized agent of the defendant insurance company within the Act of May 17, 1921, P. L. 682, Sections 501, 522. The…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. United Security Life Insurance & Trust Co. v. Central National BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
  2. National Union Fire Insurance v. Mellon National BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
  3. Egan, Admr. v. United Gas Imp. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
  4. Union National Bank v. Franklin National BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
  5. Union National Bank v. Farmers & Mechanics National BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Rau v. MankoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
  2. Ford v. PhiladelphiaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
  3. Mershon v. Millerstown BoroughSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
  4. Johnson v. First National BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
  5. Stack v. Latimer, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1936

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API