Highlands v. Cumberland Valley Farmers' Mutual Fire Insurance
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 402, Jan. T., 1901, by-plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Cumberland Co., Sept. T., 1900, No. 87, on judgment for defendant non obstante veredicto in case of Edward Highlands v. Cumberland Valley Farmers’ Mutual Fire Insurance Company. Assumpsit upon a policy of fire insurance.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 402, Jan. T., 1901, by-plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Cumberland Co., Sept. T., 1900, No. 87, on judgment for defendant non obstante veredicto in case of Edward Highlands v. Cumberland Valley Farmers’ Mutual Fire Insurance Company. Assumpsit upon a policy of fire insurance. Before E. W. Biddle, P. J. At the trial the court gave binding instructions to the jury to return a verdict for the plaintiff for $2,260.75 subject to the following points reserved: 1. Whether the evidence which was given on behalf of the plaintiff to reform the release of February 12, 1900, is admissible,…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The judgment non obstante veredicto is affirmed on the opinion of the court on the question of law reserved.
2Cited by9 opinions
- Illinois Automobile Insurance Exchange v. BraunSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
- Roberts v. Fireman's Ins. Co. of NJSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
- Mahr v. Union Pac. R.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1909
- Commonwealth v. BerneySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1917
- Highlands v. Philadelphia & Reading RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.