Marlowe v. Hoosier Casualty Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Marlowe v. Hoosier Casualty Co.

174 A. 627, 114 Pa. Super. 181, 1934 Pa. Super. LEXIS 245

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 17, 1934

DocketAppeal 154

StatusPublished

This text of 174 A. 627 (Marlowe v. Hoosier Casualty 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

Marlowe v. Hoosier Casualty Co., 174 A. 627, 114 Pa. Super. 181, 1934 Pa. Super. LEXIS 245 (Pa. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The issues involved in the present appeal are in substance identical to those in the case of Marlowe v. Travelers Insurance Company recently decided by our Supreme Court, 313 Pa. 430, 169 A. 100, and practically the same testimony was produced. The trial judge in both cases read to the jury, with his affirmance, the following point:

“If from all the evidence the jury believes the plaintiff killed her husband then she cannot profit by her own wrong and is by such wrongful act barred from recovery in this case.”

In the present case an exception was taken to the affirmance of the point but in that before the Supreme Court none was noted. Nevertheless the Supreme Court held that as there was no evidence in the case warranting the submission of the question to the jury of whether Mrs. Marlowe had killed her husband the action of the court in this respect constituted fundamental error, citing various eases. There was no more warrant to sustain the point in the present case than in that. We are, therefore, required to follow the decision of the higher court and reverse the judgment.

The judgment of the court below in favor of the defendant is reversed and a new trial awarded.

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

Per Curiam,

The issues involved in the present appeal are in substance identical to those in the case of Marlowe v. Travelers Insurance Company recently decided by our Supreme Court, 313 Pa. 430, 169 A. 100, and practically the same testimony was produced. The trial judge in both cases read to the jury, with his affirmance, the following point:

“If from all the evidence the jury believes the plaintiff killed her husband then she cannot profit by her own wrong and is by such wrongful act barred from recovery in this case.”

In the present case an exception was taken to the affirmance of the point but in that before the Supreme Court none was noted. Nevertheless the Supreme Court held that as there was no evidence in the case warranting the submission of the question to the jury of whether Mrs. Marlowe had killed her husband the action of the court in this respect constituted fundamental error, citing various eases. There was no more warrant to sustain the point in the present case than in that. We are, therefore, required to follow the decision of the higher court and reverse the judgment.

The judgment of the court below in favor of the defendant is reversed and a new trial awarded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 A. 627, 114 Pa. Super. 181, 1934 Pa. Super. LEXIS 245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marlowe-v-hoosier-casualty-co-pasuperct-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack