Prudential Ins. v. Herold

Third Circuit

Prudential Ins. v. Herold

96 F.2d 996, 1938 U.S. App. LEXIS 3609

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMarch 18, 1938

DocketNo. 6572

StatusPublished

This text of 96 F.2d 996 (Prudential Ins. v. Herold) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Prudential Ins. v. Herold, 96 F.2d 996, 1938 U.S. App. LEXIS 3609 (3d Cir. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

PER .CURIAM.

In the court below Laura H. Herold brought, as .beneficiary, 'suit against the Prudential Insurance Company on its policy on the life of her husband, who, as she alleged, was accidentally drowned some seven months past. At the trial defendant asked for binding instructions in its favor, which request was denied. The jury having found for plaintiff, defendant moved for judgment n. 6. v. in its favor. This having been denied, defendant took this appeal.

The proofs in the case were discussed in detail by the trial judge in his opinion refusing judgment n. o. v. and declining to grant a new trial. Reference thereto saves needless repetition, and as we find no error on the part of the judge either in refusing to enter judgment n. o. v. for defendant or in his rulings during the trial, the judgment in favor of the plaintiff is affirmed.

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

PER .CURIAM.

In the court below Laura H. Herold brought, as .beneficiary, 'suit against the Prudential Insurance Company on its policy on the life of her husband, who, as she alleged, was accidentally drowned some seven months past. At the trial defendant asked for binding instructions in its favor, which request was denied. The jury having found for plaintiff, defendant moved for judgment n. 6. v. in its favor. This having been denied, defendant took this appeal.

The proofs in the case were discussed in detail by the trial judge in his opinion refusing judgment n. o. v. and declining to grant a new trial. Reference thereto saves needless repetition, and as we find no error on the part of the judge either in refusing to enter judgment n. o. v. for defendant or in his rulings during the trial, the judgment in favor of the plaintiff is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 F.2d 996, 1938 U.S. App. LEXIS 3609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prudential-ins-v-herold-ca3-1938.