Rudershauer v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

Hamilton Circuit Court

Rudershauer v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

10 Ohio Cir. Dec. 258

DecidedJanuary 15, 1899

StatusPublished

This text of 10 Ohio Cir. Dec. 258 (Rudershauer v. Metropolitan Life Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hamilton Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rudershauer v. Metropolitan Life Insurance, 10 Ohio Cir. Dec. 258 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

King, J.

The designation of a beneficiary in the application is not made apart of the policy. The policy is the contract of the parties. Only so much of the application as is expressly in the policy made a part of it can be held to be a part. The name of the beneficiary is not so expressly referred to. The classes of persons to whom insurance is to be paid are named in the policy. Plaintiff is one of the classes named. See 50 N. J. L., 72. The trial court should admit evidence of the conversations-between' plaintiff and the agents of the company, and also showing to whom the policy and other papers were delivered by the company’s agent.

There is no error in ruling on questions asked plaintiff’s witness* because questions call for conclusions, and not what was said or done, neither is there any offer made of what is expected to be shown by the answers of the witness.

The requests to charge involve particular facts which are not controlling, and were properly refused. But the court should have submitted the case to the jury with an appropriate charge, and for instructing the jury to find for defendant, and because the judgment is against the evidence and law, the judgment is reversed and new trial awarded.

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

King, J.

The designation of a beneficiary in the application is not made apart of the policy. The policy is the contract of the parties. Only so much of the application as is expressly in the policy made a part of it can be held to be a part. The name of the beneficiary is not so expressly referred to. The classes of persons to whom insurance is to be paid are named in the policy. Plaintiff is one of the classes named. See 50 N. J. L., 72. The trial court should admit evidence of the conversations-between' plaintiff and the agents of the company, and also showing to whom the policy and other papers were delivered by the company’s agent.

There is no error in ruling on questions asked plaintiff’s witness* because questions call for conclusions, and not what was said or done, neither is there any offer made of what is expected to be shown by the answers of the witness.

The requests to charge involve particular facts which are not controlling, and were properly refused. But the court should have submitted the case to the jury with an appropriate charge, and for instructing the jury to find for defendant, and because the judgment is against the evidence and law, the judgment is reversed and new trial awarded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 Ohio Cir. Dec. 258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rudershauer-v-metropolitan-life-insurance-ohcircthamilton-1899.