Legal Opinion
Holliday v. Potter
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Decided November 23, 1922No. Appeal, No. 52PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Gawthrop, J.,
The proceeding we are now about to review was an attachment execution. Nora E. Potter and Benjamin E. Potter had insured their buildings with the Nes-hannoek Mutual Fire Insurance Company, hereinafter called Insurance Company. These buildings were burned. The Insurance Company adjusted the loss on October 16, 1916, and gave the Potters an order in the following form:
“$552.16 Mercer, Pa., Oct'. 16, 1916.
“J. L. Steen, Treasurer of the Neshannock Mutual Fire Insurance Company.
“Pay to Benj. E. Potter and wife or order five hundred fifty-two and 16/100 dollars for total loss…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Fulweiler v. HughesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1851
- Kieffer v. EhlerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1852
- Bell v. Philadelphia Binding & Mailing Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
- Day v. ZimmermanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1871
- Hill v. KroftSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1857
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Joseph Melnick Building & Loan Ass'n v. MelnickSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
- DeShong v. Cody, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County1964