Brassell v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Brassell v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance

134 Misc. 274, 235 N.Y.S. 195, 1929 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 850

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 6, 1929

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 134 Misc. 274 (Brassell v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brassell v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance, 134 Misc. 274, 235 N.Y.S. 195, 1929 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 850 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The beneficiary under the policy of insurance involved herein resided in New Jersey and the policy was delivered to her there by the defendant which was a Massachusetts corporation. The insured died in New Jersey and the beneficiary resided there at the time of the insured’s death. Unquestionably under such circumstances, section 92 of the Insurance Law of this State does not apply to the contract involved herein. (Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Cohen, 179 U. S. 262, 269.) Both the States of New Jersey and Massachusetts derive their common law from that of England and the presumption arises that their common law is the same as ours. (Savage v. O’Neil, 44 N. Y. 298.) There being no proof of the statute law of the State where the contract was made no presumption arises as to such statute law. (First Nat. Bank v. National Broadway Bank, 156 N. Y. 459, 472; Robb v. Washington & Jefferson College, 185 id. 485, 496; International T. B. Co. v. Connelly, 206 id. 188, 200.)

In the case of Stewart v. Union Mutual Ins. Co. of Maine (155 [275]*275N. Y. 257), upon which the trial court relied, it was quite evident that the Court of Appeals was referring to the common law when it said that in the absence of evidence we might assume that the laws of Maine where the contract of insurance was made were the same as the laws of this State. No statute of this State affected the question then before the court.

Under the common law of this State plaintiff was required to establish that at the time of the death of the insured the policy was in full force and effect and its requirements had been complied with, including the payment of premiums due.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur; present, Lydon, Callahan and Frankenthaler, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

The beneficiary under the policy of insurance involved herein resided in New Jersey and the policy was delivered to her there by the defendant which was a Massachusetts corporation. The insured died in New Jersey and the beneficiary resided there at the time of the insured’s death. Unquestionably under such circumstances, section 92 of the Insurance Law of this State does not apply to the contract involved herein. (Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Cohen, 179 U. S. 262, 269.) Both the States of New Jersey and Massachusetts derive their common law from that of England and the presumption arises that their common law is the same as ours. (Savage v. O’Neil, 44 N. Y. 298.) There being no proof of the statute law of the State where the contract was made no presumption arises as to such statute law. (First Nat. Bank v. National Broadway Bank, 156 N. Y. 459, 472; Robb v. Washington & Jefferson College, 185 id. 485, 496; International T. B. Co. v. Connelly, 206 id. 188, 200.)

In the case of Stewart v. Union Mutual Ins. Co. of Maine (155 [275]*275N. Y. 257), upon which the trial court relied, it was quite evident that the Court of Appeals was referring to the common law when it said that in the absence of evidence we might assume that the laws of Maine where the contract of insurance was made were the same as the laws of this State. No statute of this State affected the question then before the court.

Under the common law of this State plaintiff was required to establish that at the time of the death of the insured the policy was in full force and effect and its requirements had been complied with, including the payment of premiums due.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur; present, Lydon, Callahan and Frankenthaler, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 Misc. 274, 235 N.Y.S. 195, 1929 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 850, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brassell-v-john-hancock-mutual-life-insurance-nyappterm-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack