Hasinger v. N.Y. Cen. Mut. F. Ins. Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Hasinger v. N.Y. Cen. Mut. F. Ins. Co.

178 A. 153, 117 Pa. Super. 475, 1935 Pa. Super. LEXIS 443

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedNovember 21, 1934

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 178 A. 153 (Hasinger v. N.Y. Cen. Mut. F. Ins. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hasinger v. N.Y. Cen. Mut. F. Ins. Co., 178 A. 153, 117 Pa. Super. 475, 1935 Pa. Super. LEXIS 443 (Pa. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Argued November 21, 1934. Judgment was entered in the court below against the defendant for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in an action of assumpsit. The action was brought by certain members of St. Bernard's Roman Catholic Church, an unincorporated association, on its behalf, to recover the return or unearned premium due the church on the cancellation of a fire insurance policy covering the church property which had been issued by the defendant insurance company.

The action was not brought to recover a loss under the policy, but for the return or unearned premium payable on its cancellation. It was not necessary to append a copy of the policy to the plaintiff's statement.

The opinion of Judge PATTERSON of the court below clearly and concisely states the facts involved and the law applicable to the case.

The judgment is affirmed on that opinion. *Page 480

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

Argued November 21, 1934. Judgment was entered in the court below against the defendant for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in an action of assumpsit. The action was brought by certain members of St. Bernard's Roman Catholic Church, an unincorporated association, on its behalf, to recover the return or unearned premium due the church on the cancellation of a fire insurance policy covering the church property which had been issued by the defendant insurance company.

The action was not brought to recover a loss under the policy, but for the return or unearned premium payable on its cancellation. It was not necessary to append a copy of the policy to the plaintiff's statement.

The opinion of Judge PATTERSON of the court below clearly and concisely states the facts involved and the law applicable to the case.

The judgment is affirmed on that opinion. *Page 480

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 A. 153, 117 Pa. Super. 475, 1935 Pa. Super. LEXIS 443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hasinger-v-ny-cen-mut-f-ins-co-pasuperct-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack