Louck v. Orient Insurance
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 373, Jan. T., 1896, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. York Co., Aug. T., 1895, No. 50, for defendant non obstante veredicto. Assumpsit on a policy of fire insurance. Before McPherson, J., of the 12th judicial district specially presiding. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 373, Jan. T., 1896, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. York Co., Aug. T., 1895, No. 50, for defendant non obstante veredicto. Assumpsit on a policy of fire insurance. Before McPherson, J., of the 12th judicial district specially presiding. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. The court reserved a point as follows: In the case of the Orient Insurance Company the following facts are undisputed: Mr. Deininger was an insurance agent, doing a general insurance business in this place. I understand that to be the fact? .... But he was not an agent of the Orient…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Dean,
On February 1, 1894, defendant issued to plaintiff a policy of insurance against fire in the sum of $1,150, for the term of one year. The risk covered four buildings, described thus in the policy: “$750 on his two and a half story frame shingle roof building, 28 X 34 feet, occupied by the assured as a distillery, situated in Monaghan township, York county, Pa., near Bowmansdale. $250 on his iron clad building, 36 X 50 feet, and frame addition 18x20 feet, occupied as a bonded warehouse, situated about seventy-five feet east of distillery. $75.00 on his frame shingle…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Hey v. Guarantors' Liability Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- Yost v. Anchor Fire InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
- Home Insurance v. North Little Rock Ice & Electric Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1908
- Law v. Home Mutual Fire InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1914