Highlands v. Cumberland Valley Farmers' Mutual Fire Insurance
52 A. 130, 203 Pa. 134, 1902 Pa. LEXIS 668
Opinion
The judgment non obstante veredicto is affirmed on the opinion of the court on the question of law reserved.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Highlands v. Cumberland Valley Farmers' Mutual Fire Insurance, 52 A. 130, 203 Pa. 134, 1902 Pa. LEXIS 668 (Pa. 1902).
52 A. 130 (Highlands v. Cumberland Valley Farmers' Mutual Fire Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Rogers v. American Fidelity & Casualty Co.
145 A.2d 344 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1958)
Roberts v. Fireman's Ins. Co. of NJ
101 A.2d 747 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1954)
National Mutual Assurance Co. v. Gardner
80 Pa. D. & C. 166 (Montour County Court of Common Pleas, 1952)
Harter v. American Eagle Fire Ins. Co.
60 F.2d 245 (Sixth Circuit, 1932)
Illinois Automobile Insurance Exchange v. Braun
124 A. 691 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1924)
Krogulski v. Northwestern National Insurance
68 Pa. Super. 47 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1917)
Commonwealth v. Berney
66 Pa. Super. 434 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1917)
Mahr v. Union Pac. R.
170 F. 699 (Ninth Circuit, 1909)
Highlands v. Philadelphia & Reading Railroad
58 A. 560 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1904)