McGuirk v. Mutual Benefit Life Co. of Hartford

New York Supreme Court

McGuirk v. Mutual Benefit Life Co. of Hartford

20 N.Y.S. 908, 48 N.Y. St. Rep. 799

DecidedNovember 22, 1892

StatusPublished

This text of 20 N.Y.S. 908 (McGuirk v. Mutual Benefit Life Co. of Hartford) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McGuirk v. Mutual Benefit Life Co. of Hartford, 20 N.Y.S. 908, 48 N.Y. St. Rep. 799 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Herrick, J.

The plaintiffs bring an action upon a policy of insurance upon the life of one Alice McGuirk. The defendant, among other defenses, asserted that the policy was obtained through misrepresentation and fraud; that in the written application for the policy the insured was represented as about 12 years younger than she in fact was. Upon the trial the defendant offered in evidence a record of baptism “as the record of baptism of Alice Boyd, the granddaughter, of Alice McGuirk, the insured, on June 11,1854.” It was objected to by the plaintiffs, and ruled out by the court, and that ruling presents the only question argued by the appellant before this court. Assuming that the record was properly authenticated to be admissible in evidence, (of which I have serious doubts,) the offer to prove, or purpose for which it was offered, was too broad. The register was not one required by law to be kept, and it could only be received in evidence to prove the fact of baptism and its date. Tayl. Ev. (8th Ed.) § 1773; Kabok v. Insurance Co., (Sup.) 4 N. Y. Supp. 718; Sitler v. Gehr, 51 Amer. Rep. 207-217; Blackburn v. Crawford, 3 Wall. 175-189. I can see no error in the rejection of the baptismal register. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

Herrick, J.

The plaintiffs bring an action upon a policy of insurance upon the life of one Alice McGuirk. The defendant, among other defenses, asserted that the policy was obtained through misrepresentation and fraud; that in the written application for the policy the insured was represented as about 12 years younger than she in fact was. Upon the trial the defendant offered in evidence a record of baptism “as the record of baptism of Alice Boyd, the granddaughter, of Alice McGuirk, the insured, on June 11,1854.” It was objected to by the plaintiffs, and ruled out by the court, and that ruling presents the only question argued by the appellant before this court. Assuming that the record was properly authenticated to be admissible in evidence, (of which I have serious doubts,) the offer to prove, or purpose for which it was offered, was too broad. The register was not one required by law to be kept, and it could only be received in evidence to prove the fact of baptism and its date. Tayl. Ev. (8th Ed.) § 1773; Kabok v. Insurance Co., (Sup.) 4 N. Y. Supp. 718; Sitler v. Gehr, 51 Amer. Rep. 207-217; Blackburn v. Crawford, 3 Wall. 175-189. I can see no error in the rejection of the baptismal register. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 N.Y.S. 908, 48 N.Y. St. Rep. 799, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcguirk-v-mutual-benefit-life-co-of-hartford-nysupct-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack