Marino v. Hartford Fire Insurance
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jan. T., 1909, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., June T., 1906, No. 2,273, for defendant non obstante veredicto in case of Carmini Marino v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company. Assumpsit on a policy of fire insurance. Before Kinsey, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. At the trial the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff for $1,610. The court subsequently entered judgment for defendant non obstante veredicto.
Read the full summary
Jan. T., 1909, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., June T., 1906, No. 2,273, for defendant non obstante veredicto in case of Carmini Marino v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company. Assumpsit on a policy of fire insurance. Before Kinsey, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. At the trial the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff for $1,610. The court subsequently entered judgment for defendant non obstante veredicto. Error assigned was in entering judgment for defendant non obstante veredicto.
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
February 14,1910:
■This appeal is from a judgment entered for the defendant non obstante veredicto on the ground that the action had been prematurely brought. By the terms of the policy of fire in*121surance on which the action was based, the loss was not payable until sixty days after satisfactory proofs had been received by the defendant. The fire occurred in February, and a few days thereafter a paper on which was written a list of articles of merchandise, but which was without a heading or signature or any words to indicate what it had reference to, was sent to the defendant’s…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Commercial Union Assurance Co. v. HockingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1887
3Cited by3 opinions
- Atlas Life Insurance Company v. WellsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1933
- Dodson v. BrownSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
- Allegheny County v. Maryland Casualty Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1940