American National Insurance v. Davis

Court of Appeals of Georgia

American National Insurance v. Davis

88 S.E. 593, 17 Ga. App. 777, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 928

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 17, 1916

Docket6683

StatusPublished

This text of 88 S.E. 593 (American National Insurance v. Davis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American National Insurance v. Davis, 88 S.E. 593, 17 Ga. App. 777, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 928 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, J.

The two real questions in this ease are: (1) Was the contract of insurance sued upon procured by the sister (who was also the beneficiary) of the insured, under such circumstances as to make it a wagering contract, or was the policy taken out by the insured himself? (2) Did the insured, at the time of the issuance of the policy, make to the insurance company any material false and fraudulent representations as to the present and previous state of his health? These questions of fact, with appropriate instructions thereon, were properly submitted to the jury, and there was evidence to sustain their finding.

No material error of law appears, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Riissell, G. J., absent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Broyles, J.

The two real questions in this ease are: (1) Was the contract of insurance sued upon procured by the sister (who was also the beneficiary) of the insured, under such circumstances as to make it a wagering contract, or was the policy taken out by the insured himself? (2) Did the insured, at the time of the issuance of the policy, make to the insurance company any material false and fraudulent representations as to the present and previous state of his health? These questions of fact, with appropriate instructions thereon, were properly submitted to the jury, and there was evidence to sustain their finding.

No material error of law appears, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Riissell, G. J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 S.E. 593, 17 Ga. App. 777, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 928, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-national-insurance-v-davis-gactapp-1916.