In Rhodes v. Ocean Acc. Guar. Corp. (264 N.Y. 437), there was an express prohibition by the named insured; and in United States Fidelity Guar. Co. v. Grundeen (138 F. Supp. 498), it was conceded that the use of the "substitute" car was not with the permission, express or implied, of the named insured.Summary of this case from Davidson v. Fireman's Fund Indemnity Company
Argued January 18, 1934
Decided February 27, 1934
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
Henry P. Nevins and Joseph A. Nevins for appellants.
Frank G. Raichle and Jules C. Randal for respondent.
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: CRANE, LEHMAN, KELLOGG, HUBBS and CROUCH, JJ. Dissenting: POUND, Ch. J., and O'BRIEN, J.