Marshall v. Women's Mutual Insurance & Accident Co. of America

The Superior Court of New York City

Marshall v. Women's Mutual Insurance & Accident Co. of America

26 Jones & S. 406, 34 N.Y. St. Rep. 154, 58 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 406

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedDecember 1, 1890

StatusPublished

This text of 26 Jones & S. 406 (Marshall v. Women's Mutual Insurance & Accident Co. of America) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Marshall v. Women's Mutual Insurance & Accident Co. of America, 26 Jones & S. 406, 34 N.Y. St. Rep. 154, 58 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 406 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.—Freedman, J.

This action was brought on a certificate of membership. The evidence is uncontradicted that, when the plaintiff took certain steps to have Charles Marshall, whose life had been insured, reinstated, the said Marshall was lying sick in the hospital with the disease from which he subsequently died. That fact was concealed .from the defendant. Such concealment avoided whatever was done towards a reinstatement. Upon the whole case there was not sufficient evidenc upon which the jury could have found that the defendant waived the forfeiture' clause.

The complaint was properly dismissed, and the judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.

Sedgwick, Ch. J., and O’Gorman, J., concurred.

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

By the Court.—Freedman, J.

This action was brought on a certificate of membership. The evidence is uncontradicted that, when the plaintiff took certain steps to have Charles Marshall, whose life had been insured, reinstated, the said Marshall was lying sick in the hospital with the disease from which he subsequently died. That fact was concealed .from the defendant. Such concealment avoided whatever was done towards a reinstatement. Upon the whole case there was not sufficient evidenc upon which the jury could have found that the defendant waived the forfeiture' clause.

The complaint was properly dismissed, and the judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.

Sedgwick, Ch. J., and O’Gorman, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 Jones & S. 406, 34 N.Y. St. Rep. 154, 58 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 406, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marshall-v-womens-mutual-insurance-accident-co-of-america-nysuperctnyc-1890.