W. S. Weed & Co. v. Cuming
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 131, Oct. T., 1899, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Pbila. Co., March T., 1897, No. 564, on case stated in favor of plaintiff. Case stated. Before Arnold, P. J. It appears from the case stated that the action was assumpsit against J. K. Cuming upon a policy of insurance of the Philadelphia Fire Lloyds, the defendant being one of the individual signers. Part of the property covered by the policy was destroyed.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 131, Oct. T., 1899, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Pbila. Co., March T., 1897, No. 564, on case stated in favor of plaintiff. Case stated. Before Arnold, P. J. It appears from the case stated that the action was assumpsit against J. K. Cuming upon a policy of insurance of the Philadelphia Fire Lloyds, the defendant being one of the individual signers. Part of the property covered by the policy was destroyed. Defendant denies liability under the policy by reason of the Act of February 4, 1870, P. L. 14, whiclp. prohibits the issue of policies without incorporation and…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Beebek, J.,
This is a suit between private individuals. It is upon a contract of insurance, made by the defendant and several other individuals and firms, in which the defendant agrees to-pay plaintiff a certain sum in case of his loss by fire. It is-agreed that a loss has occurred, and that plaintiff has performed all the conditions required by the policy to entitle him to payment. The plaintiff’s right to recover arises because the defendant has promised, in the contract of insurance, to pay him. The breach of thus promise to pay is, therefore, the cause-of action. The defense is…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- National Bank v. MatthewsSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- Mitchell v. SmithSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1804
- Fowler v. Scully ex rel. First National BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1873
- Mitchell v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1803
- Allen v. LineSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
3Cited by12 opinions
- Hazle Drug Co. v. WilnerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
- Conemaugh Brewing Co. v. BennettSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
- Butko v. Ciccozzi (In re Butko)United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2018
- Foresman v. Gregg TownshipSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
- Weed v. CummingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.