McGonigle v. Agricultural Insurance

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

McGonigle v. Agricultural Insurance

31 A. 626, 167 Pa. 364, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 913

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 8, 1895

DocketAppeal, No. 414

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A. 626 (McGonigle v. Agricultural 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

McGonigle v. Agricultural Insurance, 31 A. 626, 167 Pa. 364, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 913 (Pa. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This suit was brought, not on the policy of insurance issued by defendant company to plaintiff but upon the agreement, alleged to have been made after the fire, between the company through its adjuster and agent, H. D. Cornell, and the plaintiff, fixing the amount of loss on the personal property and appointing appraisers to determine the amount of damage to the real estate, etc. The testimony tended to show that, with full knowledge of all the facts and circumstances, the agreement was made substantially as alleged. The submission to appraisers named therein was not only signed by the parties, — by plaintiff in person and by “ H. D. Cornell for Co.,” but the appraisers thus [370]*370chosen proceeded to appraise the damage to the real estate, and awarded therefor the sum of six hundred and seventy-five dollars. In view of this and other testimony, to which reference might be made, it is very evident that the case depended on questions of fact which were for the exclusive determination of the jury. These questions were fairly submitted in a clear and able charge to which no just exception can be taken. The result was a verdict in favor of the plaintiff; and it was fully warranted by the law and the evidence.

It is unnecessary to consider the specifications of error in detail. There is nothing in the record that would justify us in sustaining any of them. The case was well and carefully tried, and the judgment should not be disturbed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

This suit was brought, not on the policy of insurance issued by defendant company to plaintiff but upon the agreement, alleged to have been made after the fire, between the company through its adjuster and agent, H. D. Cornell, and the plaintiff, fixing the amount of loss on the personal property and appointing appraisers to determine the amount of damage to the real estate, etc. The testimony tended to show that, with full knowledge of all the facts and circumstances, the agreement was made substantially as alleged. The submission to appraisers named therein was not only signed by the parties, — by plaintiff in person and by “ H. D. Cornell for Co.,” but the appraisers thus [370]*370chosen proceeded to appraise the damage to the real estate, and awarded therefor the sum of six hundred and seventy-five dollars. In view of this and other testimony, to which reference might be made, it is very evident that the case depended on questions of fact which were for the exclusive determination of the jury. These questions were fairly submitted in a clear and able charge to which no just exception can be taken. The result was a verdict in favor of the plaintiff; and it was fully warranted by the law and the evidence.

It is unnecessary to consider the specifications of error in detail. There is nothing in the record that would justify us in sustaining any of them. The case was well and carefully tried, and the judgment should not be disturbed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A. 626, 167 Pa. 364, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 913, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgonigle-v-agricultural-insurance-pa-1895.