
    HAGEMAN VS. PEOPLE’S INSURANCE COMPANY.
    A lien may be entered against a member of a mutual insurance company after the expiration of his policy.
    It is not necessary to specify in the statement when the losses occurred.
    Error to Common Pleas of Allegheny County, No. 239, October Term, 1874.
    William Hageman insured his property in the People’s Insurance Co. and gave a premium note to the company for $99.00, payable as the assessments fell due. The charter of the company provided that persons insuring in the company ipso facto, became members therein, for the term of their insurance ; it also gave to the company the benefit of the act of 13th of April, 1838, section 6th, P. L. 364, which is as follows : ‘‘And said company shall have a lien, in themature of a judgment, waving the right of inquisition upon all the said property of the insured, to the amount of his deposit note, or so much thereof as remains unpaid, -which shall continue till the amount of such note, with interest and costs of execution, if any, shall have been paid or satisfied according to the provisions of this act: Provided, said company shall file in the office of the Prothonotary of the county wherein such real estate shall lie, a memorandum of the name of the individual insured, a description of the property, the amount of the deposit note unpaid, and the term for which the insurance shall continue; and the Prothonotary with whom the same shall be filed is hereby required forthwith to enter the. same, without tax or fee, at large upon his judgment docket, and the same when so entered shall .be'deemed and taken to be, in all respects, as a judgment entered upon confession by virtue of a warrant of attorney, and execution may at any time he had thereof for so much as, by virtue, ol the provisions of this act, may be due and demaudable, but. the lien thereof shall commence with the filing of such memorandum in the office of the. Prothonotory: Provided further, that such lien shall not be construed to take from such person insured, the privileges of a freeholder.”
    On the 19th of January, 1874, the company entered a lien against Hageman filing a copy of the note -and a 'memorandum setting forth the term ot insurance as for two years, from 28 th of March, 1866; and a statement of assessments made on July 29, 1869 ; February 23, 1871 ; May 13, 1<$72, and January 18,1873, verified by the affidavit of thi secretary, and judgment was accordingly entered thereon. The statement, however, did not specify when the losses occurred. Hageman took a rule to strike off the judgment, but the Court discharged the rule on July 18th, 1874, and Hageman then took this writ of error.
    
      W. P. Miller, Esq., for plaintiff in error,
    argued that Hageman had a right to a trial by jury; Trimble’s Appeal, 6 Watts, 133; Lauman vs. Young, 7 Casey, 306.
    
      J. M. Stoner, Esq., contra,
    
    argued that the entry of the judgment was legal; Commissioners vs. Henry, 3 Penna. Rep. 27.
   The Supreme Court affirmed the decision, of the Court below, on October 26th, 1874, in the following opinion,

Per Curiam.

The memorandum required by the act of 13th of April, 1838, P. L. 364; the sixth section of. which is made a part of the charter of this company, contained all the requirements of the act. The assessments are not required to be set forth. The judgment was therefore regularly entered. Its purpose was to give notice of the lien created by the premium note upon the property insured. The assessments are necessarily subsequent to the creation of the lien, and only concern the execution, as between the company and the defendant in the judgment. We perceive no ground therefore on which the judgment shall be set aside in a Court of error. The 5th section of the act of March 25th, 1869, P. L. 531, does not relate to the mode of entering judgment, and is not a repeal of the sixth section of the act of 1838. Its purpose is to enable the company to furnish the evidences of the assessment where an action is brought on the note instead of a judgment entered under the act of 1838. There may he many reasons for proceeding by an action on the note, as for instance, in other counties than where the insured property is situate.

Judgment affirmed.  