(DOWNLOAD) "Blair v. Travelers' Ins. Co. Et Al. Garvey" by Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ~ eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Blair v. Travelers' Ins. Co. Et Al. Garvey
- Author : Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
- Release Date : January 30, 1934
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 69 KB
Description
PIERCE, Justice. These two suits in equity are brought under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 214, § 3, cl. 10, to reach and apply in satisfaction of judgments obtained in the superior court the alleged obligation of the defendant insurance company, under a motor vehicle policy. The policy was issued to one Benzion Toren, owner of an automobile alleged to have been used on the public highway by one Bernard Dion, or by one Bernard Perreault under the direct supervision of Bernard Dion, with the express or implied consent of said Benzion Toren. The defendant in its answer admitted its right to issue policies of insurance under the so-called compulsory insurance law. St. 1925, c. 346. It further admitted that on August 27, 1931, it entered into a contract of insurance with said Benzion Toren under the compulsory motor vehicle insurance law, as prescribed by St. 1926, c. 368, § 2; St. 1928, c. 381, § 4; G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 90, § 34A. It is not denied that the sedan owned by said Toren, bearing registration plates No. 357915, covered by a certificate of insurance issued by the defendant, on October 25, 1931, was being operated or used by one Bernard Dion or Bernard Perreault on a public highway known as Southbridge-Dudley Road. It appears in the testimony reported under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 214, § 24, and under Rule 76 of the superior court (1932) that said Dion and Perreault operated the automobile on the road and date in question in a manner which caused the death of one Daniel Garvey and severe, painful, physical injuries to the plaintiff Henrietta L. Blair. It also appears in said undisputed testimony that the administrator of Garvey and the plaintiff Blair brought individual actions of tort in the superior court and that each of them recovered judgment against the said Bernard Dion and the said Bernard Perreault for substantial sums of money and the costs of their respective actions, and that the judgments remain unsatisfied.