From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Slattery v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
May 4, 1934
172 A. 216 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1934)

Opinion

April 25, 1934.

May 4, 1934.

Insurance — Life insurance — Total and permanent disability — Evidence — Finding of trial court sitting without jury — Conclusiveness.

In an action of assumpsit on a policy of life insurance, tried before a court without a jury, the plaintiff alleged that he was totally and permanently disabled. The trial court after hearing found that he failed to sustain his contention and judgment was entered for the defendant. In such circumstances, where there is competent evidence to support the court's findings they are conclusive and have the effect of a verdict of a jury.

Courts C.C. — Rule to open judgment — Disagreement of court — Effect.

Where a rule to open a judgment is argued before a court consisting of two judges and they disagree the judgment as originally entered remains in full force and effect.

Appeal No. 119, April T., 1934, by plaintiff from judgment of C.C., Allegheny County, No. 2168, 1932, in the case of James F. Slattery v. Aetna Life Insurance Company.

Before TREXLER, P.J., KELLER, CUNNINGHAM, BALDRIGE, STADTFELD, PARKER and JAMES, JJ. Affirmed.

Assumpsit on a policy of life insurance. Before KENNEDY, P.J., sitting without a jury.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.

Finding for the defendant and judgment entered thereon. Plaintiff appealed.

Error assigned, among others, were the entry of judgment and the refusal of plaintiff's rule to open the judgment.

Austin L. Staley, for appellant.

P.K. Motheral, and with him Reed, Smith, Shaw McClay, for appellee.


Argued April 25, 1934.


This action in assumpsit was tried before a judge in the county court of Allegheny County without a jury. It was based on a policy of life insurance which provided for the payment of the face of the policy, $1,000, to the insured, in the event of his total and permanent disability. It raised issues of fact which had to be decided by the fact finding body, — in this case, the trial judge. His finding on the facts has the force and effect of the verdict of a jury. His finding was that the plaintiff had failed to sustain his contention that he was totally and permanently disabled. Judgment was accordingly entered for the defendant. There is competent evidence in the case to support the finding. This being so we are as much concluded by the judge's finding as we would be by the verdict of a jury.

The rule to open the judgment and for a new trial was argued before a court consisting of two judges. Their disagreement leaves the judgment in full force and effect; just as when an appellate court is evenly divided the judgment stands: Etting v. U.S. Bank, 11 Wheaton 59, 78; Griel's Estate, 171 Pa. 412, 416; New Castle v. Berger, 74 Pa. Super. 548.

Judgment affirmed.


Summaries of

Slattery v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
May 4, 1934
172 A. 216 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1934)
Case details for

Slattery v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:Slattery, Appellant, v. Aetna Life Insurance Co

Court:Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: May 4, 1934

Citations

172 A. 216 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1934)
172 A. 216