Patten v. Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co.

6 S.E.2d 26, 192 S.C. 189, 126 A.L.R. 91, 1939 S.C. LEXIS 139
Supreme Court of South Carolina·Decided December 6, 1939·No. 14975·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Bonham.

We have given careful study to the arguments of counsel in this appeal, and have given a like consideration to the decree of Judge Oxner. We are satisfied that he has fully considered and decided all the questions made by the pleadings and the arguments and that he has correctly decided them.

The case of Livingston v. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company, 173 S. C., 87, 174 S. E., 900, is in apt analogy with the facts, and questions of law involved, and the findings and conclusions of the Court, and is decisive of, the case at bar.

*208 The decree of Judge Oxner is satisfactory to this Court. Let it be reported.

Judgment affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Stabler and Messrs. Justices Carter, Baker and Fishburne concur.

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

Patten v. Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co., 6 S.E.2d 26, 192 S.C. 189, 126 A.L.R. 91, 1939 S.C. LEXIS 139 (S.C. 1939).

6 S.E.2d 26 (Patten v. Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Elledge v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.
406 S.W.2d 374 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1966)
Southern General Factors, Inc. v. Parker Concrete Pile Co.
236 F. Supp. 103 (E.D. South Carolina, 1964)
Dixie Wood Pres. Co. v. Albert Gersten
135 S.E.2d 368 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1964)
Gustin v. Sun Life Assur. Co.
152 F.2d 447 (Sixth Circuit, 1945)