Fidelity Mutual Fire Insurance v. Hancock
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 77, Oct. T., 1898, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1897, No. 968, for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Before the court in banc.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 77, Oct. T., 1898, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1897, No. 968, for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Before the court in banc. It appears from the record and evidence that this was an action of assumpsit brought to recover assessments on a mutual policy of fire insurance issued in June, 1895, for one year for $1,000 upon an annual payment of $30.00. The clause in the policy under which plaintiff sought to recover, is as follows: “ In consideration of the stipulations…
1Opinion of the Court
Opraioir by
Orlady, J.,
The defendant substantially admits in his affidavit of defense that he became a member of the plaintiff company by purchasing and accepting his policy, and paying a premium thereon for one year; and that he had received a full, due, and legal notice of the assessments for which this suit was brought. He discloses no fact which shows any fraud or mistake in determining the amount of the assessment, and at most alleges that the amount is more than necessary to pay losses and expenses. He is not required to furnish an audit of the business of the company, but should state…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Buckley v. Columbia InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1880
3Cited by2 opinions
- Levine v. Pittsburgh State BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
- Sparks v. Flaccus Glass Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1901