Graham v. Guaranty Life Insurance Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Graham v. Guaranty Life Insurance Co.

6 S.E.2d 82, 61 Ga. App. 209, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 258

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 1, 1939

Docket27716.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 6 S.E.2d 82 (Graham v. Guaranty Life Insurance Co.) 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

Graham v. Guaranty Life Insurance Co., 6 S.E.2d 82, 61 Ga. App. 209, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 258 (Ga. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

This is an action on a life-insurance policy. On its former appearance here the petition, properly construed (most strongly against the plaintiff), showed that the plaintiff .(the beneficiary under the policy) had procured the insurance, and that she was not the heir at law of the insured ’or dependent on him in any way and that the relation of debtor and creditor did not exist between them. This court therefore held that the petition was subject to general demurrer because it failed to allege that the plaintiff had an insurable interest in the life of the insured. Guaranty Life Ins. Co. v. Graham, 58 Ga. App. 767 (199 S. E. *210 829). Before the remittitur from this court was made the judgment of the trial court the plaintiff amended her petition by alleging that the insured “made the application for the said policy on his own life and procured the- policy himself, and paid some of the first premiums thereon.” This court in its former decision in this case held: “Tn an action by one who procured a policy on the life of another, insurable interest must be alleged; but it is otherwise where the person ivhose life is insured is the contracting party.’ 14 R. G. L. 1430, § 590.” (Italics, ours.) The court also cited Guardian M. L. Ins. Co. v. Hogan, 80 Ill. 35 (22 Am. R. 180), where a similar ruling was made. That holding by this court has become the law of the case; and the petition as amended set forth a cause of action, .and the court erred in sustaining the general demurrer interposed. However, paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the demurrer (special demurrers) to the petition as finally amended were good and were properly sustained; but paragraph 2 of the demurrer (special demurrer) was without merit and the court erred in sustaining it.

Judgment reversed in pari, and affirmed in part.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

This is an action on a life-insurance policy. On its former appearance here the petition, properly construed (most strongly against the plaintiff), showed that the plaintiff .(the beneficiary under the policy) had procured the insurance, and that she was not the heir at law of the insured ’or dependent on him in any way and that the relation of debtor and creditor did not exist between them. This court therefore held that the petition was subject to general demurrer because it failed to allege that the plaintiff had an insurable interest in the life of the insured. Guaranty Life Ins. Co. v. Graham, 58 Ga. App. 767 (199 S. E. *210 829). Before the remittitur from this court was made the judgment of the trial court the plaintiff amended her petition by alleging that the insured “made the application for the said policy on his own life and procured the- policy himself, and paid some of the first premiums thereon.” This court in its former decision in this case held: “Tn an action by one who procured a policy on the life of another, insurable interest must be alleged; but it is otherwise where the person ivhose life is insured is the contracting party.’ 14 R. G. L. 1430, § 590.” (Italics, ours.) The court also cited Guardian M. L. Ins. Co. v. Hogan, 80 Ill. 35 (22 Am. R. 180), where a similar ruling was made. That holding by this court has become the law of the case; and the petition as amended set forth a cause of action, .and the court erred in sustaining the general demurrer interposed. However, paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the demurrer (special demurrers) to the petition as finally amended were good and were properly sustained; but paragraph 2 of the demurrer (special demurrer) was without merit and the court erred in sustaining it.

Judgment reversed in pari, and affirmed in part.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 S.E.2d 82, 61 Ga. App. 209, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/graham-v-guaranty-life-insurance-co-gactapp-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack