Todd v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York

Ohio Court of Appeals

Todd v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York

194 N.E. 431, 17 Ohio Law. Abs. 476, 48 Ohio App. 459, 2 Ohio Op. 52, 1934 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1181

Ohio Court of Appeals·Decided May 29, 1934·No. No 2938·Published

Opinion

[477]*477OPINION

By LLOYD, J.

The evidence offered in behalf of Todd certainly tended to prove that P & C had agreed to pay for the services so performed by Doyle & Lewis within the provisions of the policy providing that it would pay the expense incurred in defending Todd in the action brought against him by Netzel. And, since the services performed by Doyle & Lewis were primarily for the benefit of Todd, he could not be- said to be a mere volunteer in paying for the services rendered by them upon the refusal of P‘ & C to do so; and also since, if the fact were found to be that P & Pi employed Doyle & Lewis for their alleged services, even .- though [478]*478there was not a formal assignment to him by Doyle & Lewis, of their claim, the law under such circumstances would imply such assignment.

The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas is reversed! and the cause remanded to that court for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.

RICHARDS and WILLIAMS, JJ, concur.

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

[477]*477OPINION

By LLOYD, J.

The evidence offered in behalf of Todd certainly tended to prove that P & C had agreed to pay for the services so performed by Doyle & Lewis within the provisions of the policy providing that it would pay the expense incurred in defending Todd in the action brought against him by Netzel. And, since the services performed by Doyle & Lewis were primarily for the benefit of Todd, he could not be- said to be a mere volunteer in paying for the services rendered by them upon the refusal of P‘ & C to do so; and also since, if the fact were found to be that P & Pi employed Doyle & Lewis for their alleged services, even .- though [478]*478there was not a formal assignment to him by Doyle & Lewis, of their claim, the law under such circumstances would imply such assignment.

The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas is reversed! and the cause remanded to that court for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.

RICHARDS and WILLIAMS, JJ, concur.

Todd v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, 194 N.E. 431, 17 Ohio Law. Abs. 476, 48 Ohio App. 459, 2 Ohio Op. 52, 1934 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1181 (Ohio Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

194 N.E. 431 (Todd v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.