Schroedel v. Humboldt Fire Ins.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Schroedel v. Humboldt Fire Ins.

27 A. 1077, 158 Pa. 459, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1614

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided November 13, 1893·No. Appeal, No. 197·Published·Cited by 22 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

One of the stipulations contained in the contract sued on is : “ The entire policy shall be void .... if the interest of the insured be not truly stated therein ; .... or if the interest of the insured be other than unconditional and sole ownership.” The uncontradicted evidence was that the title to the property was in the plaintiff and his wife jointly. This, in the absence of any proof of fraud or mistake, as to the insertion of the stipulation above quoted, was a flat bar to plaintiff’s recovery. There was therefore no error in directing a verdict for defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

One of the stipulations contained in the contract sued on is : “ The entire policy shall be void .... if the interest of the insured be not truly stated therein ; .... or if the interest of the insured be other than unconditional and sole ownership.” The uncontradicted evidence was that the title to the property was in the plaintiff and his wife jointly. This, in the absence of any proof of fraud or mistake, as to the insertion of the stipulation above quoted, was a flat bar to plaintiff’s recovery. There was therefore no error in directing a verdict for defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Schroedel v. Humboldt Fire Ins., 27 A. 1077, 158 Pa. 459, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1614 (Pa. 1893).

Pincite

27 A. 1077 (Schroedel v. Humboldt Fire Ins.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related