Palmer v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Palmer v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance

150 Misc. 669, 270 N.Y.S. 10, 1934 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1123

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 8, 1934

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 150 Misc. 669 (Palmer v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Palmer v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance, 150 Misc. 669, 270 N.Y.S. 10, 1934 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1123 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant, prima facie, proved breach of the conditions of the policy. Plaintiff had it within her power to rebut the defendant’s evidence, but did not. The evidence shows the certificate of death and the hospital certificate were furnished with the proofs of death and the statements therein were competent [670]*670evidence as admissions by plaintiff. The hospital record, under section 374-a of the Civil Practice Act, was admissible to show date of entry and discharge and that the deceased was treated, but not competent to prove diagnosis which was privileged under section 352 of the Civil Practice Act.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur; present, Hammer, Callaban and Frankenthaler, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant, prima facie, proved breach of the conditions of the policy. Plaintiff had it within her power to rebut the defendant’s evidence, but did not. The evidence shows the certificate of death and the hospital certificate were furnished with the proofs of death and the statements therein were competent [670]*670evidence as admissions by plaintiff. The hospital record, under section 374-a of the Civil Practice Act, was admissible to show date of entry and discharge and that the deceased was treated, but not competent to prove diagnosis which was privileged under section 352 of the Civil Practice Act.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur; present, Hammer, Callaban and Frankenthaler, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 Misc. 669, 270 N.Y.S. 10, 1934 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palmer-v-john-hancock-mutual-life-insurance-nyappterm-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack