New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. Blackshear, Inc., (1934)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 19
Judges: PER CURIAM. —
Attorneys: Claibourne M. Phipps, for Plaintiff in Error;
Henry L. Williford and James E. Kirk, for Defendant in Error.
Filed: Sep. 28, 1934
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: An insurance policy contained the following provision: "CONDITION J.: In case of a disagreement *Page 290 as respects loss under Insuring Agreement (3) such loss shall, upon written demand of either party hereto, be determined by two appraisers, one to be appointed by each party. If these two appraisers cannot agree, they may select a third and the award in writing of any two appraisers shall determine the nature and extent of the loss. Each appraiser shall be paid by the party appointing him, b
Summary: An insurance policy contained the following provision: "CONDITION J.: In case of a disagreement *Page 290 as respects loss under Insuring Agreement (3) such loss shall, upon written demand of either party hereto, be determined by two appraisers, one to be appointed by each party. If these two appraisers cannot agree, they may select a third and the award in writing of any two appraisers shall determine the nature and extent of the loss. Each appraiser shall be paid by the party appointing him, bu..
More
I do not think the above question was presented in plaintiff in error's original brief, in the manner required by Rule 20, and therefore should not now be considered as ground for reversal. But I think the judgment below should be reversed for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinions heretofore submitted by Mr. Justice ELLIS and the writer.
ELLIS, J., concurs in the views expressed by Mr. Justice Brown.
Source: CourtListener
