Opinion
December 12, 1933.
July 13, 1934.
Appeals — Consolidated cases involving one policy of fire insurance — Separate appeals to Supreme Court and Superior Court — Reversal by Supreme Court — Concurrence by Superior Court.
Where two suits involving a policy of fire insurance are consolidated and tried together, but separate verdicts are rendered from which appeals are taken — one to the Supreme Court and the other to the Superior Court — and the Supreme Court orders a new trial deciding that error was committed in rejecting certain evidence which, if received, would have affected the validity of the policy of insurance, the Superior Court will enter a similar order directing a new trial of the case appealed to it.
Appeal No. 216, October T., 1933, by British Foreign Marine Insurance Company, Ltd., garnishee, from judgment of C.P., Northampton County, December T., 1929, No. 679, in the case of Monroe Stauffer v. Anthony De Franco and Fred Ronca and British Foreign Marine Insurance Company, Ltd.
Before TREXLER, P.J., KELLER, CUNNINGHAM, BALDRIGE, STADTFELD, PARKER and JAMES, JJ. Reversed.
Attachment execution. Before STOTZ, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
Verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $2,234.55 and judgment entered thereon. Garnishee appealed.
Error assigned, among others, was the exclusion of certain testimony involving the validity of a policy of fire insurance.
Arthur S. Arnold, and with him Chidsey, Maxwell Frack, for appellant.
Everett Kent, and with him George F. Coffin, Jr., for appellee.
Argued December 12, 1933.
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 lower 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.