Lytwyn v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Lytwyn v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance

138 Misc. 293, 245 N.Y.S. 354, 1930 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1605

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 10, 1930

StatusPublished

This text of 138 Misc. 293 (Lytwyn 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

Lytwyn v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance, 138 Misc. 293, 245 N.Y.S. 354, 1930 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1605 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The only misrepresentations asserted in the answer were the alleged false answers to question 4 of the application.

The physician’s certificate attached to proof of death related solely to the doctor’s “ prescribing for or attending ” the deceased for certain “ diseases.” The testimony given by the certifying physician on the trial did not show that deceased_either had or had been treated for a “ disease ” of the bladder or prostate or heart “ trouble.” It merely showed that incidental to other treatment the doctor found a slightly enlarged prostate gland such as every man of the age of deceased had. This, of course, did not show a disease of that organ. Nor could a “ slightly enlarged heart — nothing unusual ” be deemed a heart “ trouble ” without further proof on the subject.

Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and judgment directed for plaintiff for the amount demanded in the complaint, with interest and costs.

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

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

Per Curiam.

The only misrepresentations asserted in the answer were the alleged false answers to question 4 of the application.

The physician’s certificate attached to proof of death related solely to the doctor’s “ prescribing for or attending ” the deceased for certain “ diseases.” The testimony given by the certifying physician on the trial did not show that deceased_either had or had been treated for a “ disease ” of the bladder or prostate or heart “ trouble.” It merely showed that incidental to other treatment the doctor found a slightly enlarged prostate gland such as every man of the age of deceased had. This, of course, did not show a disease of that organ. Nor could a “ slightly enlarged heart — nothing unusual ” be deemed a heart “ trouble ” without further proof on the subject.

Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and judgment directed for plaintiff for the amount demanded in the complaint, with interest and costs.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 Misc. 293, 245 N.Y.S. 354, 1930 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1605, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lytwyn-v-john-hancock-mutual-life-insurance-nyappterm-1930.