Royal Insurance v. Roedel
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Certificate from the Supreme Court at Nisi Prius : Of January Term 1878, No. 146. This was an amicable action and case stated in which George F; Roedel and William H. Fry, trading as' George Roedel & Co., were plaintiffs, and The Royal Insurance Company defendants. The facts as they appear by the case stated are as follows :— The plaintiffs occupied a building in Third street, Philadelphia, as shoe dealers and manufacturers.
Read the full summary
Certificate from the Supreme Court at Nisi Prius : Of January Term 1878, No. 146. This was an amicable action and case stated in which George F; Roedel and William H. Fry, trading as' George Roedel & Co., were plaintiffs, and The Royal Insurance Company defendants. The facts as they appear by the case stated are as follows :— The plaintiffs occupied a building in Third street, Philadelphia, as shoe dealers and manufacturers. The first and second floors were used as salesrooms and the third and fourth as a factory. They had a large stock of boots, shoes, &c., manufactured and unmanufactured,…
1Opinion of the Court
Judgment was entered in the Supreme Court, January 18th 1875,
2Per curiam
This case is ruled by that of Sloat v. Royal Insurance Co., 13 Wright 14. The loss, in this instance, exceeds the entire insurance in all the policies, general and special. The loss in the first and second stories of the building, which was not covered by the special policy in the subject in the third and fourth stories, largely exceeded the entire amount of the general policies. So the loss in the third and fourth stories exceeded the amount of the special policy, which was confined to the subject in those upper stories. It is…
3Cited by2 opinions
- American Central Insurance v. Heath & BlackwellCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1902
- Clarke v. Western Assurance Co., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County1892