Mattoon v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance

Oregon Supreme Court

Mattoon v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance

332 P.2d 599, 215 Or. 178, 1958 Ore. LEXIS 347

DecidedDecember 31, 1958

StatusPublished

This text of 332 P.2d 599 (Mattoon v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mattoon v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance, 332 P.2d 599, 215 Or. 178, 1958 Ore. LEXIS 347 (Or. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, Mae M. Warren (now Mattoon) brought this action to recover $2,952 alleged to be due her as the beneficiary of a policy of group insurance issued by defendant, John Hancock Mutual [179]*179Life Insurance Company, covering the life of her deceased husband, Donald E. Warren. After both parties had rested, defendant moved for directed verdict and the trial judge stated that in his opinion the motion should be granted. However, at the request of the plaintiff, made pursuant to OES 18.140, the court submitted the case to the jury. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff. Thereafter, defendant moved for a judgment in its favor notwithstanding the verdict on the ground that there was no substantial evidence to support the verdict for the plaintiff. This motion was allowed and a judgment notwithstanding the verdict entered for the defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

We have carefully reviewed the record and agree with the trial judge that there was no substantial evidence to support a verdict for the plaintiff.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, Mae M. Warren (now Mattoon) brought this action to recover $2,952 alleged to be due her as the beneficiary of a policy of group insurance issued by defendant, John Hancock Mutual [179]*179Life Insurance Company, covering the life of her deceased husband, Donald E. Warren. After both parties had rested, defendant moved for directed verdict and the trial judge stated that in his opinion the motion should be granted. However, at the request of the plaintiff, made pursuant to OES 18.140, the court submitted the case to the jury. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff. Thereafter, defendant moved for a judgment in its favor notwithstanding the verdict on the ground that there was no substantial evidence to support the verdict for the plaintiff. This motion was allowed and a judgment notwithstanding the verdict entered for the defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

We have carefully reviewed the record and agree with the trial judge that there was no substantial evidence to support a verdict for the plaintiff.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

332 P.2d 599, 215 Or. 178, 1958 Ore. LEXIS 347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mattoon-v-john-hancock-mutual-life-insurance-or-1958.