Konicz v. Orient Insurance
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 92, April T., 1900, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Cambria Co., June T., 1897, No. 286, on -verdict for plaintiff non obstante veredicto in case of Joseph J. Konicz v. The Orient Insurance Company of Hartford, Conn. Assumpsit on policies of fire insurance issued by tbe Orient Insurance Company and Teutonia Insurance Company.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 92, April T., 1900, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Cambria Co., June T., 1897, No. 286, on -verdict for plaintiff non obstante veredicto in case of Joseph J. Konicz v. The Orient Insurance Company of Hartford, Conn. Assumpsit on policies of fire insurance issued by tbe Orient Insurance Company and Teutonia Insurance Company. Before Barker, P. J. The defendant’s principal contention was that the second statement of proof of loss had not been executed by the plaintiff, but by an attorney in fact; and that when the insured neglected to furnish a second proof of loss in answer…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Rice, P. J.,
In concluding his charge the learned trial judge instructed the jury as follows: “ In these two cases we direct you to render verdicts for the plaintiff in the sum of one thousand dollars in each. case, subject to the questions of law set forth in the points submitted to us by the defendants’ counsel, which questions of law we reserve. The points submitted by the defendants’ counsel we need not read now, because they are directed to be filed and made part of the record in the case. There are one or two disputed questions of fact in the cases, but they are of such a…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Casey v. Pennsylvania Asphalt Paving Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- Koons v. McNameeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Ginther v. Borough of YorkvilleSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- Mayne v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- Zinnel v. BergdollSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1899