Boyd v. Royal Indemnity Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Boyd v. Royal Indemnity Co.

7 Ohio Law. Abs. 303

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMay 8, 1929

DocketNo 21470

StatusPublished

This text of 7 Ohio Law. Abs. 303 (Boyd v. Royal Indemnity Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Boyd v. Royal Indemnity Co., 7 Ohio Law. Abs. 303 (Ohio 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Syllabus by

MARSHALL, CJ.

ERROR PROCEEDINGS

(260 S) A judgment of the Court of appeals reversing a judgment of the trial court “on the ground that the evidence submitted in this court and in the trial court was insufficient in law to entitle defendant in error to judgment” is not a judgment of reversal “wholly or partly on the ground that such judgment is not sustained by sufficient evidence” within the true intent and meaning of Rule XIX of this court.

INSURANCE — Railroads (500 D2d)

(310 A) Where a person is intending to take passage on a street car and is attempting to enter the ear and has one foot resting on the step of the car, and one hand on the hand rail of the car, and while in this position the car door is closed catching his foot so that he cannot alight from the car and he is carried a short distance in this manner. Held: That he is “riding as a passenger in or upon a public conveyance (including the platform, steps or running board thereof)” within the true intent and meaning of a “double benefit” clause in a policy of accident insurance.

Robinson, Jones, Matthias and Allen, JJ, concur. Kinkade, J, dissents. Day, J, not participating.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Syllabus by

MARSHALL, CJ.

ERROR PROCEEDINGS

(260 S) A judgment of the Court of appeals reversing a judgment of the trial court “on the ground that the evidence submitted in this court and in the trial court was insufficient in law to entitle defendant in error to judgment” is not a judgment of reversal “wholly or partly on the ground that such judgment is not sustained by sufficient evidence” within the true intent and meaning of Rule XIX of this court.

INSURANCE — Railroads (500 D2d)

(310 A) Where a person is intending to take passage on a street car and is attempting to enter the ear and has one foot resting on the step of the car, and one hand on the hand rail of the car, and while in this position the car door is closed catching his foot so that he cannot alight from the car and he is carried a short distance in this manner. Held: That he is “riding as a passenger in or upon a public conveyance (including the platform, steps or running board thereof)” within the true intent and meaning of a “double benefit” clause in a policy of accident insurance.

Robinson, Jones, Matthias and Allen, JJ, concur. Kinkade, J, dissents. Day, J, not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 Ohio Law. Abs. 303, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boyd-v-royal-indemnity-co-ohio-1929.