Zenner v. Goetz

• Decision Date: 23 November 1936
• Parties: ZENNER v. GOETZ et al.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

188 A. 124
324 Pa. 432

ZENNER
v.
GOETZ et al.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Nov. 23, 1936.

Appeal No. 228, March term, 1936 from judgment of Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County, No. 2447, January term, 1935; Alfred E. Swoyer, Presiding Judge, Twenty-second Judicial District, Specially Presiding.

Trespass for personal injuries by John Zenner against Anthony A. Goetz. After the plaintiff recovered a $5,000 judgment against the defendant, the Travelers Indemnity Company, defendant's liability insurance carrier, was brought into the case by garnishment proceedings. Judgment was entered against the garnishee in the sum of $5,464.49, and the garnishee appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before KEPHART, C. J., and SCHAFFER, MAXEY, DREW, LINN, STERN, and BARNES, JJ.

Robert D. Dalzell and Dalzell, McFall & Pringle, all of Pittsburgh, for appellant.

Burtt Harris, of Pittsburgh, for appellee.

MAXEY, Justice.

Appellant, defendant's liability insurance carrier, was brought into the case by garnishment proceedings after plaintiff recovered judgment against defendant. As garnishee, it now complains of the entry of judgment against it on the ground that plaintiff failed to show liability under the policy issued, and hence that its motion

188 A. 125

for judgment n. o. v. should have been granted.

Plaintiff sued defendant in an action for personal injuries alleged to have resulted from defendant's negligent operation of his automobile. Appellant's counsel entered their appearance for defendant, but before trial the court permitted this appearance to be withdrawn. Eventually judgment for plaintiff in the amount of $5,000 and costs was entered against defendant. When this was not paid, plaintiff issued attachment execution against appellant. In its answers to plaintiff's interrogatories appellant admitted the issuance to defendant of a policy of automobile insurance and attached a copy of the policy. It further admitted that at the time of the accident which injured plaintiff the policy was in force.

At the trial of the garnishment proceeding, plaintiff offered in evidence the record of the previous trial and appellant's admissions in the answers to the interrogatories, and rested its case. Appellant then produced two witnesses who testified that they were passengers for hire in defendant's automobile at the time the accident occurred. The purpose of this evidence was to show that the insurance policy did not cover the accident in question, because the policy expressly...