Siter v. Morrs
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- Henry v. First & Farmers National Bank & Trust Co. (Susquehanna County Court of Common Pleas 1932)
- Cannon Mills, Inc. v. Flynn (Pa. Super. Ct. 1923)
- American Record Pressing Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 1979)
- McCoy v. Home Insurance (Pa. Super. Ct. 1951)
- Automobile Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Springfield Dyeing Co. (3d Cir. 1940)
- In re Podolsky (3d Cir. 1940)
- In re Podolsky (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 1940)
- Williams & Manning v. Southern Mutual Insurance (Pa. Super. Ct. 1932)
- Sagransky v. Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance (Pa. Super. Ct. 1928)
- Sagransky v. T.M. F. Ins. Co., Ltd. (Pa. Super. Ct. 1927)
- Pittsburgh Storage Co. v. Scottish Union & National Insurance (Pa. 1895)
- Roberts v. Firemen's Insurance (Pa. 1894)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The opinion of the District court, as delivered by Judge Stroud, on the reserved point, is an able exposition of the law. We adopt it. The only point that had color of difficulty in the case, was the allegation that the goods of the plaintiff were not merchandize, within the policy. After a careful examination of the policy, we are satisfied they were covered by its provisions. The policy is on “ merchandize generally, and without exception, their own, or held in trust, or on assignment, contained in the bach building and shed adjoining.” In the specification “merchandize generally” includes books and stationary in packages. This policy covered goods, wares, and merchandize, as well as goods in trust or on commission. We think the goods of the plaintiff destroyed were within its provisions.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.