Huckestein v. New York Life Insurance
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 178, Oct. T., 1902, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., Feb. T., 1902, No. 672, on verdict for plaintiff, in case of John Huckestein v. New York Life Insurance Company and Walter S. Huntley. Trespass for malicious prosecution.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 178, Oct. T., 1902, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., Feb. T., 1902, No. 672, on verdict for plaintiff, in case of John Huckestein v. New York Life Insurance Company and Walter S. Huntley. Trespass for malicious prosecution. Before McClung, J. At the trial it appeared that the plaintiff who owned a policy in the New York Life Insurance Company sold the policy to Richard Herzfeld for $2,000, and that Herzfeld surrendered the policy to the company, and received for it $2,600. There was testimony that plaintiff had submitted to Herzfeld a paper in which he…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb. Justice Fell,
This action was for a malicious prosecution. The plaintiff was arrested and tried for obtaining money from one of the defendants, the New York Life Insurance Company, by a false .pretense. The company authorized its agent, the other defendant, to cause his arrest. If there was a false pretense it was *31not made to the insurance company, with whom the plaintiff had no dealings whatever, but to a broker who bought the policy of the plaintiff, and who afterwards sold or surrendered it to the company. As to this there was no dispute. The instruction therefore that the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Roessing v. Pittsburg Railways Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
- Boyd v. KerrSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
- Jones v. MacConochieSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1947