Campbell v. National-Ben Franklin Fire Ins. Co.

• Citation: 200 A. 701
• Parties: CAMPBELL v. NATIONAL-BEN FRANKLIN FIRE INS. CO.
• Decision Date: 15 July 1938
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

200 A. 701

CAMPBELL
v.
NATIONAL-BEN FRANKLIN FIRE INS. CO.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

July 15, 1938.

Appeal No. 153, April term, 1938, from judgment of Allegheny County Court, No. 220 of 1934; Sara M. Soffel, Judge.

Action in assumpsit on fire policies covering furniture and a dwelling by Earnest C. Campbell against National-Ben Franklin Fire Insurance Company, wherein the plaintiff obtained a verdict for loss of the personal property and a verdict for defendant was directed for loss due to destruction of the dwelling. From the judgment the plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before KELLER, P. J., and CUNNINGHAM, BALDRIGE, STADTFELD, PARKER, and RHODES, JJ.

David R. Levin, of Pittsburgh, for appellant. W. W. Stoner and J. M. Stoner & Sons, all of Pittsburgh, for appellee.

200 A. 702

RHODES, Judge.

&gt

This is an action of assumpsit on policies of fire insurance covering furniture and dwelling located at 2212 Tustin Street, Pittsburgh, Pa., alleged to be the property of plaintiff. This case was previously before us on appeal, and is reported in 123 Pa.Super. 274, 187 A. 217. On the retrial plaintiff again obtained a verdict for the loss of the personal property, and the trial judge again directed a verdict for defendant for the loss due to the destruction of the dwelling. Plaintiff's motion for new trial was refused, and he has appealed.

The record before us is incomplete, as exhibits received in evidence, the admission of which is the subject of the fifth and eighth assignments of error, have not been incorporated in the printed record or in appellant's briefs. The brief of appellee contains a supplemental record wherein the deed, the admission of which is the subject of the fifth assignment of error, is printed. Appellant has clearly failed, in so far as the fifth and eighth assignments of error are concerned, to comply with rule 26 of this court. The eighth assignment of error, which complains of the admission of certain records, cannot be considered in the absence of the evidence alleged to have been erroneously admitted.

Appellant's position is so clearly untenable that separate discussion of each assignment of error is unnecessary. Besides, most of the assignments relate to the rulings of the trial judge relative to the admission or rejection of evidence, and are without merit.

The record discloses an unusual transaction, and the only question which warrants consideration is whether the evidence discloses such a violation of the insurance contract which appellant had with appellee as to justify the action of the trial judge in directing a verdict on the claim for loss due to the destruction of the dwelling.

The...