Mutual Life Ins. v. Hathaway

Ninth Circuit

Mutual Life Ins. v. Hathaway

106 F. 815, 45 C.C.A. 655, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 3625

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided February 4, 1901·No. No. 603·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

HAWLEY, District Judge.

Prom the foregoing statement, it will readily be seen that the facts, as well as the legal principles, involved herein are substantially the same as were presented to the supreme court in Insurance Co. v. Cohen, 179 U. S. 262, 21 Sup. Ct. 106, 45 L. Ed. — . The most important question in that case, as in this, w'as whether the law of New York controls. It was admitted by the supreme court that, if the policy was to be governed by the laws of New York, Mrs. Cohen was entitled to recover. The court, after a review of several authorities, came to the conclusion “that the statute of the state of New York does not, under the circumstances presented, control, and that the rights of the parties are measured alone by the terms of the contract. The insured having failed to pay the premium for years before his death, the policy was forfeited.” Upon the authority of that case, the judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.

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

HAWLEY, District Judge.

Prom the foregoing statement, it will readily be seen that the facts, as well as the legal principles, involved herein are substantially the same as were presented to the supreme court in Insurance Co. v. Cohen, 179 U. S. 262, 21 Sup. Ct. 106, 45 L. Ed. — . The most important question in that case, as in this, w'as whether the law of New York controls. It was admitted by the supreme court that, if the policy was to be governed by the laws of New York, Mrs. Cohen was entitled to recover. The court, after a review of several authorities, came to the conclusion “that the statute of the state of New York does not, under the circumstances presented, control, and that the rights of the parties are measured alone by the terms of the contract. The insured having failed to pay the premium for years before his death, the policy was forfeited.” Upon the authority of that case, the judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.

Mutual Life Ins. v. Hathaway, 106 F. 815, 45 C.C.A. 655, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 3625 (9th Cir. 1901).

Pincite

106 F. 815 (Mutual Life Ins. v. Hathaway) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related