Sparks v. Flaccus Glass Co.

Citations

• 16 Pa. Super. 119
• 1901 Pa. Super. LEXIS 27

Syllabus

<p>Practice, O. P. — Pleading—Statement of claim — Cause of action.</p> <p>In an action to recover the amount of an assessment made by the board of directors of a mutual fire insurance company, where the action is upon the contract yarned in the policy, of which the by-laws form a part, and not upon the resolution of the directors, a statement of claim which has Ihe policy and by-laws attached to it, and which clearly and concisely avers that the losses and expenses of the plaintiff company during the time the defendant’s policy was in force necessitated the assessment, that it was duly made by the board of directors on a day named, and that due notice thereof was given the defendant, is a sufficient statement of a good cause of action without attaching a verbatim copy of the resolution, and a detailed and itemized statement of the losses and expenses which necessitated the assessment.</p> <p>Practice — Pleading—Affidavit of defense — Demurrer.</p> <p>A suggestion contained in an affidavit of defense that the statement of claim is not sufficient in law to entitle the plaintiff to judgment is in the nature of a demurrer, and is not equivalent to a motion for a bill of particulars. Such demurrer raises a pure question of law, whilst the latter motion is addressed to the discretion of the court.</p> <p>Insurance — Mutual fire insurance — Withdrawal—By-laws.</p> <p>Where a by-law of a mutual fire insurance company permits a member to withdraw at any time provided the policy is returned for cancelation, “and if all charges standing against said policy holder shall have been paid,” and another article provides that members whose policies have been canceled “ shall be liable to assessments for losses and expenses incurred during the time the policy was in force,” the company does not, by permitting a member to withdraw, relieve such member from liability for losses incurred during the life of his policy, but which were not charged against him prior to his withdrawal.</p> <