Montalbano v. AUTO. INS. CO. OF HARTFORD

Fishburnf, Justice.

In a former action between the same parties, brought in a Magistrate Court to enforce the collection of an insurance policy issued to the resppndent by appellant, insuring his dog against certain specified risks and perils, it was held by this court that the policy did not cover poisoning. It was further held that parol evidence was not admissible to establish that appellant’s agent allegedly represented to respondent that the policy did cover this risk. Montalbano v. Automobile Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn., 217 S. C. 157, 60 S. E. (2d) 77. The respondent was consequently…