Graybill v. Penn Township Mutual Fire Insurance
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 207, Jan. T., 1895, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Lancaster Co., Oct. T., 1890, No. 71, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit on a policy of fire insurance.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 207, Jan. T., 1895, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Lancaster Co., Oct. T., 1890, No. 71, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit on a policy of fire insurance. At the trial it appeared that plaintiff’s property was insured in the following words : “Two story house Att,.....$1,200 00 Contents, ....... 500 00 Wood house,...... 20 00 Ground barn, Att. / ^qq qq Butcher shop, Att. 1 Contents, ....... 400 00 Smoke house,.......5 00 Contents,....... 500 00” The ground barn and attachment and butcher shop and attachment were destroyed by fire. At the time of the fire a quantity of…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Williams,
This case turns upon the meaning of the word “ contents ” as used in the policy of insurance sued on. A ground barn and a butcher shop were insured as one building for the sum of four hundred dollars and the contents were insured for four hundred dollars more. A smoke house was insured for *82five dollars and its contents for five hundred dollars. The barn and butcher shop were burned with their contents. The smoke house was not burned, but its contents which had been removed to a storage room in one end of the butcher shop were wholly consumed. The question…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Celley v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'nSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
- Penman v. St. Paul Fire & Marine InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- McKeesport Machine Co. v. Ben Franklin InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Iowa Electric Co. v. Home InsuranceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1945
- In Re Helicopter Crash Near Weaverville, Ca 8/5/08District Court, D. Oregon · 2010
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.