Bartlett v. Rothschild
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 191, Jan. T., 1905, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 5, Phila. Co., March T., 1902, No. 659, on verdict for plaintiffs in case of Ezra S. Bartlett and George W. Shepherd, Jr., copartners, trading as Bartlett & Shepherd, v. Jacob Rothschild. Assumpsit to enforce personal liability of an agent of a foreign insurance company under the Act of May 1, 1876, sec. 48, P. L. 53. Before Davis, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 191, Jan. T., 1905, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 5, Phila. Co., March T., 1902, No. 659, on verdict for plaintiffs in case of Ezra S. Bartlett and George W. Shepherd, Jr., copartners, trading as Bartlett & Shepherd, v. Jacob Rothschild. Assumpsit to enforce personal liability of an agent of a foreign insurance company under the Act of May 1, 1876, sec. 48, P. L. 53. Before Davis, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. Under binding instructions from the court, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs for 12,888.40, subject to the point…
1ConcurrenceMitchell, C. J.
I concur in the reversal of this judgment because it should have gone to the jury. But I would go further and hold that if the jury should find that the contract of insurance was made *428in New York, as the evidence ratber tends to establish, it would be a good defense to this action. It is not within the power of a statute of Pennsylvania to add a penalty or impose an additional liability to a contract made in another state, and valid there.
When Swing v. Munson, 191 Pa. 582 was decided, I was of opinion that it stretched the authority of the Pennsylvania statute beyond its legitimate province.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Swing v. MunsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
- Commonwealth v. BiddleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1891