Huntzinger v. National Fire Insurance

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Huntzinger v. National Fire Insurance

1 Walk. 188, 1887 Pa. LEXIS 457

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided February 19, 1887·No. No. 31·Published

Opinion

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of Court below on February 19, 1887, in the following opinion:

Per Curiam.

There is no evidence of a valid sale to the corporation by the defendant below, nor that the check of $3,000 was obtained by him with the authority of the corporation. As regards the corporation, the whole transaction was without authority and invalid. He, therefore, had the sum obtained by means of the check without right, and was bound ex aequo et bono to return it.

Judgment affirmed.

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

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of Court below on February 19, 1887, in the following opinion:

Per Curiam.

There is no evidence of a valid sale to the corporation by the defendant below, nor that the check of $3,000 was obtained by him with the authority of the corporation. As regards the corporation, the whole transaction was without authority and invalid. He, therefore, had the sum obtained by means of the check without right, and was bound ex aequo et bono to return it.

Judgment affirmed.

Huntzinger v. National Fire Insurance, 1 Walk. 188, 1887 Pa. LEXIS 457 (Pa. 1887).

Pincite

1 Walk. 188 (Huntzinger v. National Fire Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.