Yeier v. Camden Fire Insurance
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 25, March T., 1917, by plaintiff, from order of O. P. Lackawanna Co., Nov. T., 1915, No. 38, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Francis Yeier v. The Camden Fire Insurance Association of Camden, N. J. Assumpsit on a policy of fire insurance. 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
Opinion by
Henderson, J.,
The plaintiff’s action was'on a policy of insurance covering a building destroyed by fire. The court discharged a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient 'affidavit of defense and from that judgment this appeal was taken. The affidavit was made by one John S. Luce who described himself as “special agent of the above named defendant having knowledge of the necessary facts hereinafter set forth.” Exception was taken to the affidavit for the reasons: First, that Luce had no authority to make the affidavit or if he had such authority it was not *573made to appear why it was…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Wakely v. Sun Insurance Office of LondonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
- Safety Banking & Trust Co. v. ConwellSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
- Yeier v. Hanover Fire InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
- Bushong v. EdwardsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
3Cited by2 opinions
- Mintz v. Tri-County Natural Gas Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
- Connecticut Fire Ins. Co. v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1927