Fogle v. Lycoming Mutual Ins.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Fogle v. Lycoming Mutual Ins.

3 Grant 77, 1860 Pa. LEXIS 254

DecidedOctober 25, 1860

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Grant 77 (Fogle v. Lycoming Mutual Ins.) 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

Fogle v. Lycoming Mutual Ins., 3 Grant 77, 1860 Pa. LEXIS 254 (Pa. 1860).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion was delivered

Per curiam.

The errors assigned are not sustained. We perceive nothing wrong or deficient in the charge of the court to the jury. There is nothing in'the charter that prevents such a by-law as No. 10 from making part of the contract of insurance ; and no mere indulgence of breaches of it that has not become customary can amount to a change of its express tenor. The law relating to the conditions for ■ forfeiting executed es-tates in land, is not a ruling analogy for conditions in avoidance of such an executory contract as this. We think the notice of the assessment of loss, to which the plaintiff ought to have contributed, was properly proved. The original notice was not produced; but there appears to have been but one form for all such, notices, and the proof that one of that form was sent, s.eems to be a competent mode of proof. Such is always the practice in proving notices of notaries, on protesting bills and notes.

Judgment affirmed and record remitted.

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

The opinion was delivered

Per curiam.

The errors assigned are not sustained. We perceive nothing wrong or deficient in the charge of the court to the jury. There is nothing in'the charter that prevents such a by-law as No. 10 from making part of the contract of insurance ; and no mere indulgence of breaches of it that has not become customary can amount to a change of its express tenor. The law relating to the conditions for ■ forfeiting executed es-tates in land, is not a ruling analogy for conditions in avoidance of such an executory contract as this. We think the notice of the assessment of loss, to which the plaintiff ought to have contributed, was properly proved. The original notice was not produced; but there appears to have been but one form for all such, notices, and the proof that one of that form was sent, s.eems to be a competent mode of proof. Such is always the practice in proving notices of notaries, on protesting bills and notes.

Judgment affirmed and record remitted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Grant 77, 1860 Pa. LEXIS 254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fogle-v-lycoming-mutual-ins-pa-1860.