O'Hara v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 97, Oct. T., 1919, by defendant, from the judgment of Municipal Court of Philadelphia, Sept. T., 1918, No. 580, in favor of plaintiff for want of an answer in the case of Mary O’Hara v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Assumpsit on insurance policy. Before Bonniwell, J. Rule to open judgment. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. ’ The court discharged the rule. Error assigned, was the order of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Henderson, J.,
Plaintiff’s action is founded on a policy of insurance issued by the defendant on the life of John O’Hara, the plaintiff’s husband. The amount of the insurance is $110. *436Judgment by default for want of an answer was taken by the plaintiff which judgment the court declined to open on the petition of the defendant. Objection is now made to the validity of the judgment and to the refusal of the court to open it.- With respect to the first assignment, the position taken by the appellant is that the statement of claim does not assert a cause of action, and the judgment is…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Maley v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1917
3Cited by7 opinions
- Life Ins. Co. of Virginia v. NewellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1931
- Williard v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
- Sovereign Camp, W. O. W. v. BodenCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1926
- Yelda v. W. & S. Life InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
- Elliott v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.