Brennan v. Prudential Insurance
This text of 23 A. 901 (Brennan v. Prudential Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
We agree with the learned judge of the court below that the affidavit of defence was insufficient. The policy of insurance in question was taken out on the life of Margaret Brennan. The insurance company defends upon the ground that the policy was issued and delivered to Catharine Lamb, who took it, and paid all the premiums on it which were paid, as beneficiary, and that the.said Catharine Lamb had no insurable interest in the life of Margaret Brennan, being neither a creditor nor a relation. There would have been more force in this defence if the suit had been brought by Catharine Lamb. It .was brought, however, by the administrator of the estate of Margaret Brennan, [201]*201and we have been furnished with no sufficient reason why he may not recover.
We do not attach importance to the further objection that no exceptions to the affidavit were filed in the court below. That court is the best judge of its own rules, and we would not interfere with its construction of them, unless for palpable abuse. We do not find such in this case.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
23 A. 901, 148 Pa. 199, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 948, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brennan-v-prudential-insurance-pa-1892.