Etter v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 1, March T., 1912, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Dauphin Co., Sept. T., 1910, No. 655, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of A. L. Etter v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company. Assumpsit upon a contract of fire insurance.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 1, March T., 1912, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Dauphin Co., Sept. T., 1910, No. 655, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of A. L. Etter v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company. Assumpsit upon a contract of fire insurance. Before McCarroll, J. At the trial the court entered a compulsory non-suit which it subsequently refused to take off, McCarroll, J., filing an opinion in which he stated the facts to be as follows: The plaintiff claims under an alleged parol contract made with the agent of the defendant company reinsuring his personal property in the amount of $750 for…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Head, J.,
To enable the plaintiff to make out a prima facie case it was necessary his proof should tend to establish that at the time of his fire loss there existed a valid and binding contract of insurance with the defendant company. If the existence of such contract was proven by evidence, its validity would not be destroyed merely because it was made in parol. This is clearly pointed out in Benner v. Fire Association, 229 Pa. 75. After a review of a great number of authorities in many jurisdictions, Mr. Justice Moschzisker, speaking for the court, declares that the weight of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Benner v. Fire Ass'nSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
3Cited by1 opinion
- McDowell v. Covert & JohnsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1919