Galashevsky v. Camden Fire Insurance
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 36, March T., 1916, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Lackawanna Co., Oct. T., 1915, No. 1024, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Joseph Galashevsky v. Camden Fife Insurance Association of Camden, N. J. Assumpsit on a policy of fire insurance. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient .affidavit of defense. The opinion of the Superior Court states the case.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 36, March T., 1916, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Lackawanna Co., Oct. T., 1915, No. 1024, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Joseph Galashevsky v. Camden Fife Insurance Association of Camden, N. J. Assumpsit on a policy of fire insurance. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient .affidavit of defense. The opinion of the Superior Court states the case. Error assigned was order discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
Eule 15, of the court in which this case was heard, as applied to affidavits of defense filed by defendant corporations, provides, “If the defendant be a corporation, the affidavit may be made by the principal officer, or any agent, or employee, having knowledge of the necessary facts.”
The affidavit of defense filed, avers that “John S. Luce, special agent of the above named defendant, having knowledge of the necessary facts hereinafter set forth,” ......and concludes, “as to such of the facts as are hereinabove stated, of which the affiant has been informed, he verily believes the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Wakely v. Sun Insurance Office of LondonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
- Citizens Natural Gas Co. v. Waynesburg Natural Gas Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
- Yeier v. Hanover Fire InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
3Cited by1 opinion
- Mintz v. Tri-County Natural Gas Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918