Camberling v. M'Call

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Camberling v. M'Call

2 U.S. 280

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedDecember 15, 1797

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2 U.S. 280 (Camberling v. M'Call) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Camberling v. M'Call, 2 U.S. 280 (1797).

Pincite

Opinion

After the second trial, and argument on the special verdict, the Court seemed to be of opinion, “that the plaintiff could not recover ; because, he had not made proof of the loss, according to the terms of the policy, three months previously to the commencement of the action.” No opinion was then, however, expressed on the second objection made by the defendant’s counsel; but the Court asked, whether he would wave the objection to the time of commencing the action, that the cause might be decided on its merits ? And he refused to comply.

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

After the second trial, and argument on the special verdict, the Court seemed to be of opinion, “that the plaintiff could not recover ; because, he had not made proof of the loss, according to the terms of the policy, three months previously to the commencement of the action.” No opinion was then, however, expressed on the second objection made by the defendant’s counsel; but the Court asked, whether he would wave the objection to the time of commencing the action, that the cause might be decided on its merits ? And he refused to comply.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 U.S. 280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/camberling-v-mcall-pa-1797.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack