Mahin v. Policy Holders Life Insurance Association

22 P.2d 726, 132 Cal. App. 786, 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 494
California Court of Appeal·Decided June 2, 1933·No. Docket No. 4786.·Published

Opinion

[1] This case involves the same questions of law and fact as those presented in the cases of Kiku Saito v. Policy HoldersLife Insurance Assn., ante, p. 412 [22 P.2d 724], andTodome Arao v. Policy Holders Life Insurance Assn., ante, p. 785 [22 P.2d 726], this day decided by this court, save and except the name of the plaintiff and the dates of the transactions involved, and the further exception that the complaint in this case does not set out a copy of the policy of insurance, and the application therefor, signed by the insured, showing his address to be in San Joaquin County, nor that the policy of insurance was executed in San Joaquin County, as does the complaint in each of those cases. And, on authority of those cases and the cases relied upon and cited by us in those cases, the order appealed from is affirmed.

Thompson, J., and Pullen, P.J., concurred.

*Page 1

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

Mahin v. Policy Holders Life Insurance Association, 22 P.2d 726, 132 Cal. App. 786, 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 494 (Cal. Ct. App. 1933).

22 P.2d 726 (Mahin v. Policy Holders Life Insurance Association) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kiku Saito v. Policy Holders L. Ins. Assn.
22 P.2d 724 (California Court of Appeal, 1933)
Arao v. Policy Holders Life Insurance Association
22 P.2d 726 (California Court of Appeal, 1933)