Legal Opinion

Moltz, to Use v. Sherwood Bros., Inc.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 9, 1934No. Appeal 289PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Stadteelb, J.,

The amended statement of claim in this case alleged that Gould Moltz, legal plaintiff, was injured on the 16th day of November, 1928, in a collision between his automobile and one driven by a servant or employee of Sherwood Brothers, Inc., defendant, through the negligence of said employee; that the use plaintiff, Boyal Indemnity Company, under the terms of a policy of insurance given legal plaintiff’s employer, paid the legal plaintiff $602.14 due him under the "Workmen’s Compensation Act; that it notified defendant that it would pay compensation and medical bills for…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Phœnix Insurance v. Erie & Western Transportation Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1886
  2. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Commercial Union InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
  3. Mobile & Montgomery Railway Co. v. JureySupreme Court of the United States · 1884
  4. Hall & Long v. Railroad Cos.Supreme Court of the United States · 1872
  5. Smith v. Yellow Cab Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926

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

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. StarleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  2. Philadelphia v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
  3. Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Domtar Paper Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
  4. Travelers Insurance v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1972
  5. Reliance Insurance v. Richmond MacHine Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1983

21 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