Legal Opinion
McClellan Et Ux. v. Madonti
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided December 4, 1933No. Appeals, 287 and 288PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Linn,
After appellees, husband and wife, obtained judgment against Madonti for damages resulting from his negligent automobile driving, they brought in the appellant as garnishee by attachment sur judgment. The trial on the issues then made by plaintiffs’ interrogatories and appellant’s answers, resulted in judgments against appellant, from which it now appeals. The single question is, did appellant have notice of the suit against Madonti as conditioned by the contract?
Appellant had issued its policy to one Nelson, indemnifying against liability (West v. MacMillan, 301…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Coleman v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
- Dickinson v. Maryland Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1924
- Conroy v. Commercial Cas. Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
- West v. MacMillan (Et Al.)Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
- Gough v. HalperinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Houran, Admr. v. Preferred Acc. Ins. Co. of N.Y.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1938
- Cameron v. BergerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
- Miller v. ZURICH GEN. ACCIDENT AND LIABILITY INS.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1955
- Morris v. Bender (Et Al.)Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
- Northwestern Mutual Insurance Co. v. Independence Mutual Insurance Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1959
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.