Columbia Insurance v. John Buckley & Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Columbia Insurance v. John Buckley & Co.

83 Pa. 298, 1877 Pa. LEXIS 71

DecidedMay 7, 1877

StatusPublished

This text of 83 Pa. 298 (Columbia Insurance v. John Buckley & Co.) 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

Columbia Insurance v. John Buckley & Co., 83 Pa. 298, 1877 Pa. LEXIS 71 (Pa. 1877).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Mercur

delivered the opinion of the court, May 7th 1877.

Both assignments present one question only: that is, the effect to be given to the non-payment, within thirty days after notice, of an assessment on the premium-note of the insured. The court below thought the omission to pay made the policy absolutely void, and that no valid assessment on the note could be made to pay losses thereafter sustained. The evidence of such assessments was therefore rejected.

In an opinion just filed, in another case between these same parties, in regard to another assessment on this identical note, we have fully discussed the question which arises here. The reasons there given rule this case. It is unnecessary to repeat them. They show that the learned judge erred in rejecting the evidence, and that this judgment must be reversed.

Judgment reversed, and a venire facias de novo awarded.

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

Mr. Justice Mercur

delivered the opinion of the court, May 7th 1877.

Both assignments present one question only: that is, the effect to be given to the non-payment, within thirty days after notice, of an assessment on the premium-note of the insured. The court below thought the omission to pay made the policy absolutely void, and that no valid assessment on the note could be made to pay losses thereafter sustained. The evidence of such assessments was therefore rejected.

In an opinion just filed, in another case between these same parties, in regard to another assessment on this identical note, we have fully discussed the question which arises here. The reasons there given rule this case. It is unnecessary to repeat them. They show that the learned judge erred in rejecting the evidence, and that this judgment must be reversed.

Judgment reversed, and a venire facias de novo awarded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 Pa. 298, 1877 Pa. LEXIS 71, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/columbia-insurance-v-john-buckley-co-pa-1877.