Engle v. Capital Fire Insurance

Citations

• 75 Pa. Super. 390
• 1921 Pa. Super. LEXIS 27

Syllabus

<p>Insurance — Fire insurance — Ownership of property insured.</p> <p>In an action of assumpsit on an insurance policy, it appeared that the policy of insurance was made to an individual owner, and the defense was advanced that the insured property was jointly owned by the insured and his brother and that the latter had been convicted of arson, in burning the building in which the property was contained. Evidence in support of this allegation was produced that the brother had had charge of the financial part of the business, had kept the books and often deposited money in his own name. This evidence was contradicted by the plaintiff, who claimed that the property belonged to him as an individual. Under such circumstances the ease was for the jury, to determine to whom the business and the property insured really belonged.</p> <p>Act of June 28, 1917, P. L. 61/A — Noncompliance with act — Effect on insurance policy.</p> <p>The failure of an owner of a business, conducted under a fictitious name, to register the name, as required by the Act of June 28, 1917, P. L. 645, does not invalidate a fire insurance policy in his favor upon property used in the business.</p> <p>Practice, G. P. — Order of trial — Gross-examination.</p> <p>Where a witness has already been called for examination twice and has been cross-examined at length, an objection to a further examination, which was sustained by the court, is not ground for reversal. This was a matter for the discretion of the court, and where ample opportunity had been afforded to examine the witness there is no reason to believe that the discretion was abused in refusing to permit further examination. This is more especially the case where the matter proposed to be proved was irrelevant to the issue.</p>