Legal Opinion

Sagransky v. Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County

Decided June 2, 1927No. 17562Published

1Opinion of the Court

Gordon, Jr., J.,

This is a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit! of defence. The plaintiff is a tailor who is engaged at No. 341 East Rockland Street, in a small way, in the business of cleaning, •pressing, repairing and altering clothes for customers. A fire broke out on his premises, in which a quantity of his customers’ goods were injured or destroyed. The defendant company, which had issued a policy of insurance upon the stock of plaintiff’s shop, resists payment under the policy upon the ground that the injured goods are not covered by the terms of the policy. The clause…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Livingstone v. Boston InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
  2. McClure v. Mutual Fire Ins.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
  3. Cannon Mills, Inc. v. FlynnSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
  4. Bone v. Detroit National Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
  5. Mellon v. Ohio German Fire InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1909

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

Powered by the Exa API