Lynch v. Buchanan

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Lynch v. Buchanan

112 A. 665, 96 Conn. 39, 1921 Conn. LEXIS 46

DecidedFebruary 21, 1921

StatusPublished

This text of 112 A. 665 (Lynch v. Buchanan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lynch v. Buchanan, 112 A. 665, 96 Conn. 39, 1921 Conn. LEXIS 46 (Colo. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Under the pleadings and the charge of the court, which was correct and adequate, as the issues developed on the trial, the jury must have found, *40 in order to render its verdict, that the four policies of insurance on the life of Mary T. Creedon were taken out by Abbie Lyons and all premiums paid by her, and that the policies and all proceeds therefrom belonged to her and at her death to her estate, subject to the duty on her part and on the part of her estate to pay the reasonable funeral expenses of Mary T. Creedon.

The defendant’s principal claim of error is that the court erred in not granting her motion to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial. Under the conflicting evidence the jury could have reasonably rendered the verdict given.

The claimed errors as to the charge are not of such general interest as to justify discussion.

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

Under the pleadings and the charge of the court, which was correct and adequate, as the issues developed on the trial, the jury must have found, *40 in order to render its verdict, that the four policies of insurance on the life of Mary T. Creedon were taken out by Abbie Lyons and all premiums paid by her, and that the policies and all proceeds therefrom belonged to her and at her death to her estate, subject to the duty on her part and on the part of her estate to pay the reasonable funeral expenses of Mary T. Creedon.

The defendant’s principal claim of error is that the court erred in not granting her motion to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial. Under the conflicting evidence the jury could have reasonably rendered the verdict given.

The claimed errors as to the charge are not of such general interest as to justify discussion.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A. 665, 96 Conn. 39, 1921 Conn. LEXIS 46, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lynch-v-buchanan-conn-1921.