Legal Opinion

Julius King Optical Co. v. Royal Insurance

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 14, 1904No. Appeal, No. 161PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Appeal, No. 161, Oct. T., 1903, by plaintiff, from judgment of O. P. Delaware Co., June T., 1900, No. 270, on verdict for plaintiff on feigned issue in case of Julius King Optical Company v. Royal Insurance Company et al., Garnishees of E. E. Hanf, trading as the Hanf Optical Company. Feigned issue to determine ownership of fund paid into court. Before Johnson, P. J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.

Read the full summary

Appeal, No. 161, Oct. T., 1903, by plaintiff, from judgment of O. P. Delaware Co., June T., 1900, No. 270, on verdict for plaintiff on feigned issue in case of Julius King Optical Company v. Royal Insurance Company et al., Garnishees of E. E. Hanf, trading as the Hanf Optical Company. Feigned issue to determine ownership of fund paid into court. Before Johnson, P. J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. The court directed a verdict for plaintiff for $650, subject to the question of law reserved : “ Whether any evidence has been submitted under which the plaintiff is…

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Hendekson, J.,

The question involved in this case was one of title simply. The Hanf Optical Company being the plaintiff in the issue assumed the burden of establishing its right to the fund, and an examination of the evidence presented on the trial satisfies us that a clear title was made out. By competent evidence, which was uncontradicted, it was made to appear that the plaintiff in the issue was a corporation created under the laws of Delaware ; that it owned the property which was the subject of the insurance ; that it leased the building in which the property was situated, and…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Caldwell v. MillerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1863
  2. Commonwealth v. ShoberSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
  3. New Jersey Steel Tube Co. v. RiehlSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
  4. Grant v. Henry Clay Coal Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1875

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Duroth Manufacturing Co. v. CauffielSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
  2. National Cash Register Co. v. ShurberSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
  3. United States Circle Swing Co. v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
  4. McCray Refrigerator Co. v. BacsoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
  5. Perna v. Allentown Italian Society, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lehigh County1933

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API