American Casualty Insurance & Security Co. v. Arrott
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 135, Oct. T., 1896, by-defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., May T., 1895, No. 657, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit to recover moneys received for premiums on insurance. Before McClung, J. The Lets appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. The court charged as follows: This case has resolved itself practically into a question of law.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 135, Oct. T., 1896, by-defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., May T., 1895, No. 657, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit to recover moneys received for premiums on insurance. Before McClung, J. The Lets appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. The court charged as follows: This case has resolved itself practically into a question of law. It seems that the legal plaintiff, the casualty company, or rather the company whose receiver is plaintiff, had employed the defendant as agent, and that he was its agent at the time of its failure in 1898; that on the. 23d of…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Fell,
This action is brought by the receivers of the American Casualty Insurance and Security Company to recover from the defendant the amount of the premiums collected by him from policy holders while he was acting as agent of the company. In the settlement of his accounts with the company the defend ant claimed credit for return premiums paid by him on the cancelation of policies. The question in the case is whether these payments were properly made. The defendant was authorized to accept the surrender of policies and to return the unearned premiums to policy holders…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Bohlinger v. Ward & Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1956
- Trimble v. CoppageCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1970
- Korlann v. E-Z Pay Plan, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1967
- Korlann v. E-Z Pay Plan, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1967