Hutton v. Patrons' Mutual Fire Insurance

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Hutton v. Patrons' Mutual Fire Insurance

43 A. 219, 191 Pa. 369, 1899 Pa. LEXIS 826

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 8, 1899

DocketAppeal, No. 227

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 43 A. 219 (Hutton v. Patrons' Mutual Fire Insurance) 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

Hutton v. Patrons' Mutual Fire Insurance, 43 A. 219, 191 Pa. 369, 1899 Pa. LEXIS 826 (Pa. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

We find nothing in this record to justify a reversal of the judgment in favor of defendant. For reasons given by the learned trial judge, he was clearly right in refusing plaintiff’s request, “to withdraw all the testimony tending to show that gasoline was kept on the premises insured,” etc., as recited in the first specification. He was also right in refusing plaintiff’s point for charge recited in the second specification, for the reason that there was no evidence of an assessment such as is referred to in that point.

Both of defendant’s points recited in the third and fourth specifications, respectively, were warranted by the evidence, and therefore rightly affirmed; and that left no question of fact for the consideration of the jury. There is nothing in either of the specifications that requires discussion.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

We find nothing in this record to justify a reversal of the judgment in favor of defendant. For reasons given by the learned trial judge, he was clearly right in refusing plaintiff’s request, “to withdraw all the testimony tending to show that gasoline was kept on the premises insured,” etc., as recited in the first specification. He was also right in refusing plaintiff’s point for charge recited in the second specification, for the reason that there was no evidence of an assessment such as is referred to in that point.

Both of defendant’s points recited in the third and fourth specifications, respectively, were warranted by the evidence, and therefore rightly affirmed; and that left no question of fact for the consideration of the jury. There is nothing in either of the specifications that requires discussion.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A. 219, 191 Pa. 369, 1899 Pa. LEXIS 826, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hutton-v-patrons-mutual-fire-insurance-pa-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack