Eisner v. Guardian Mut. Life Ins.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri

Eisner v. Guardian Mut. Life Ins.

8 F. Cas. 398, 22 Int. Rev. Rec. 152, 23 Pitts L.J. 158, 5 Ins. L.J. 613, 3 Cent. Law J. 302, 1876 U.S. App. LEXIS 1819

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri

DecidedMarch 31, 1876

DocketCase No. 4,323

StatusPublished

This text of 8 F. Cas. 398 (Eisner v. Guardian Mut. Life Ins.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Eisner v. Guardian Mut. Life Ins., 8 F. Cas. 398, 22 Int. Rev. Rec. 152, 23 Pitts L.J. 158, 5 Ins. L.J. 613, 3 Cent. Law J. 302, 1876 U.S. App. LEXIS 1819 (circtedmo 1876).

Pincite

Opinion

Upon this point

DILLON, Circuit Judge,

charged the jury as follows: If you believe that the only previous trouble with the throat of the assured was, that in September, 1871, he consulted Dr. Kohlenheyer, and was advised that his larynx was slightly inflamed; that the doctor prescribed for him about three times at intervals of about a week; that the doctor considered it nervous, temporary, and pronounced it cured; and if the assured had reason to believe when the policy was taken he was in good health, and that his throat trouble had been temporary, was cured, and its effect had passed away, and the insurance was procured, and the answer to question 19 given in good faith, then such a throat trouble, temporary in its nature and cured, and its effect gone at the time of the insurance, would not be such a throat disease as would defeat a recovery on the policy. But if you find that it was more than temporary, of a nature to affect the health, the general health of the assured, or was of such a nature as to be ominous of deeper trouble, or calculated to alarm him, then his answer to the 19th question would defeat a recovery.

Verdict for plaintiff.

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

Upon this point

DILLON, Circuit Judge,

charged the jury as follows: If you believe that the only previous trouble with the throat of the assured was, that in September, 1871, he consulted Dr. Kohlenheyer, and was advised that his larynx was slightly inflamed; that the doctor prescribed for him about three times at intervals of about a week; that the doctor considered it nervous, temporary, and pronounced it cured; and if the assured had reason to believe when the policy was taken he was in good health, and that his throat trouble had been temporary, was cured, and its effect had passed away, and the insurance was procured, and the answer to question 19 given in good faith, then such a throat trouble, temporary in its nature and cured, and its effect gone at the time of the insurance, would not be such a throat disease as would defeat a recovery on the policy. But if you find that it was more than temporary, of a nature to affect the health, the general health of the assured, or was of such a nature as to be ominous of deeper trouble, or calculated to alarm him, then his answer to the 19th question would defeat a recovery.

Verdict for plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 F. Cas. 398, 22 Int. Rev. Rec. 152, 23 Pitts L.J. 158, 5 Ins. L.J. 613, 3 Cent. Law J. 302, 1876 U.S. App. LEXIS 1819, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eisner-v-guardian-mut-life-ins-circtedmo-1876.