TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States Casualty Co. v. Diamond Fuel Co.

United States Casualty Company, Complainant-Appellant v. Diamond Fuel Company, Albert Moseley, Francesco Piarulli, Salvatora Nuzzi and Vincenzo Nuzzi, Defendants-Respondents.

United States Cas. Co. v. Diamond Fuel Co., 194 A. 169 (N.J. 1937)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of New Jersey · State Highest Courts
Decided
September 5, 1937
Judges
PER CURIAM.
Citations
194 A. 169122 N.J. Eq. 369

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a decree of the court of chancery dismissing the bill of complaint filed to have declared void on the ground of fraud a policy of public liability insurance covering two trucks owned by the respondent Diamond Fuel Company. The other respondents are holders of judgments *370 in actions based upon the alleged negligent operation of one of the trucks, and Moseley, driver of the truck involved in the accident and defendant in the actions at law.

The insurer sought to prove fraud in the application for coverage for the truck involved in the accident, in that the application was made after the accident occurred and the coverage was issued through the connivance of an officer of the Diamond Fuel Company and an employe of the agent of the insurer. The question presented and decided in the court below was purely one of fact. The learned vice-chancellor found that the fraud relied upon was not established by the required degree of proof. We have carefully examined the voluminous testimony and reach the conclusion that the finding of the vice-chancellor is supported by the proofs and should not be disturbed.

The decree appealed from is affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chiee-Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Heher, Perskie, Dear, Wells, WolesKeil, Raeeerty, Cole, JJ. 13.

For reversal — None.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list