Taylor v. United States Casualty Co.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. All concur, except Sears, P. J., and Taylor, J., who dissent and vote for reversal on the law and granting the motion in the foEowing memorandum: Defendant admits in its answer that in the action against the owner of the automobile, and his son the defendant through its attorneys conducted the defense. Defendant is, therefore, estopped in this action by the judgment in the former action from claiming that Harmon V. Strong was not driving “ legally ” under section 109 of the Insurance Law. Hannon V. Strong had a driver’s Ecense when the…