People's Mut. F. Ins. v. Groff
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 178, July T., 1892, by defendant, from order of C. P. Berks Co., June T., 1892. No. 56, making absolute a rule for judgment against defendant, Christian M. Groff. Rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defence in assumpsit to recover .insurance assessments.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 178, July T., 1892, by defendant, from order of C. P. Berks Co., June T., 1892. No. 56, making absolute a rule for judgment against defendant, Christian M. Groff. Rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defence in assumpsit to recover .insurance assessments. The facts appear in the following opinion of the court by Endlich, J.: “ This suit is for the collection of a ten per cent assessment made June 10,1891, upon defendant’s policy, and an additional amount of twenty-five per cent thereof, chargeable on failure to pay on thirty days after notice. The affidavit of…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
This appeal is from the judgment against defendant for want of á sufficient affidavit of defence to plaintiff’s amended statement. In his opinion, sent up with the record, the learned judge of the common pleas has clearly pointed out wherein the affidavit of defence is defective. There appears to be no error in making the rule absolute and entering judgment in favor of plaintiff company for the amount of its claim. For reasons given in the opinion referred to, the judgment should be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by6 opinions
- Taggart, Ins. Com. v. GrahamSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
- State Mutual Rodded Fire Insurance v. RandallMichigan Supreme Court · 1925
- Fidelity Mutual Fire Insurance v. VitaleSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
- Tanner v. O. M. Weber Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
- Donaldson v. FortnaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.