Stauffer v. De Franco

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Stauffer v. De Franco

173 A. 427, 113 Pa. Super. 423, 1934 Pa. Super. LEXIS 184

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedDecember 12, 1933

DocketAppeal 216

StatusPublished

This text of 173 A. 427 (Stauffer v. De Franco) 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

Stauffer v. De Franco, 173 A. 427, 113 Pa. Super. 423, 1934 Pa. Super. LEXIS 184 (Pa. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Ronca, in his own right, and as assignee of De Franco, and Stauffer, in his own right, brought separate suits against the British & Foreign Marine Insurance Company. The cases were consolidated and tried together. Separate verdicts were rendered, and two appeals taken by the defendants, one to the Supreme Court and one to this court, Stauffer’s verdict being for less than $2,500 and Ronca’s more. The Supreme Court reversed the lower1 court in the Ronca Appeal, 314 Pa. 449, 172 A. 475, deciding that error had been committed in the rejection of certain evidence which, if received, would involve the validity of the policy of insurance sued upon, and ordered a new trial. It follows that a similar order should be entered in the present appeal.

Judgment reversed and a new trial awarded.

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

Per Curiam,

Ronca, in his own right, and as assignee of De Franco, and Stauffer, in his own right, brought separate suits against the British & Foreign Marine Insurance Company. The cases were consolidated and tried together. Separate verdicts were rendered, and two appeals taken by the defendants, one to the Supreme Court and one to this court, Stauffer’s verdict being for less than $2,500 and Ronca’s more. The Supreme Court reversed the lower1 court in the Ronca Appeal, 314 Pa. 449, 172 A. 475, deciding that error had been committed in the rejection of certain evidence which, if received, would involve the validity of the policy of insurance sued upon, and ordered a new trial. It follows that a similar order should be entered in the present appeal.

Judgment reversed and a new trial awarded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 A. 427, 113 Pa. Super. 423, 1934 Pa. Super. LEXIS 184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stauffer-v-de-franco-pasuperct-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack