Johnson v. Capital Fire Insurance

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Johnson v. Capital Fire Insurance

67 A. 748, 218 Pa. 421, 1907 Pa. LEXIS 538

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 27, 1907

DocketAppeal, No. 56

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 67 A. 748 (Johnson v. Capital 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

Johnson v. Capital Fire Insurance, 67 A. 748, 218 Pa. 421, 1907 Pa. LEXIS 538 (Pa. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The limit of the defendant’s liability under the terms of the insurance policy was the actual cash, value of the building insured, not in any event to exceed “ What it would cost the insured to repair or replace the same with materials of like kind and quality.” It is urged that the use of the word “ restore ” instead of the word “ repair ” in the charge may have niisled the jury as to the measure of damages. If counsel thought the use of the word was objectionable, they should have called the attention of the court to it at the time. At most it was an inadvertent error which would have been corrected. “ A party may not sit silent and take his chances of a verdict, and then if it is adverse complain of'a matter which if an error would have been immediately rectified and made harmless: ” Commonwealth v. Razmus, 210 Pa. 609. The assignments of error are overruled and the judgment - is affirmed.'

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

Per Curiam,

The limit of the defendant’s liability under the terms of the insurance policy was the actual cash, value of the building insured, not in any event to exceed “ What it would cost the insured to repair or replace the same with materials of like kind and quality.” It is urged that the use of the word “ restore ” instead of the word “ repair ” in the charge may have niisled the jury as to the measure of damages. If counsel thought the use of the word was objectionable, they should have called the attention of the court to it at the time. At most it was an inadvertent error which would have been corrected. “ A party may not sit silent and take his chances of a verdict, and then if it is adverse complain of'a matter which if an error would have been immediately rectified and made harmless: ” Commonwealth v. Razmus, 210 Pa. 609. The assignments of error are overruled and the judgment - is affirmed.'

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 A. 748, 218 Pa. 421, 1907 Pa. LEXIS 538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-capital-fire-insurance-pa-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack