Traynor v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Traynor v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance

248 A.D. 828, 290 N.Y.S. 838, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7518

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 2, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D. 828 (Traynor v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Traynor v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance, 248 A.D. 828, 290 N.Y.S. 838, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7518 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Action upon an insurance policy which defendant claimed lapsed by reason of non-payment of the premium [829]*829on the due date and which plaintiff claimed was in full force and effect by reason of a course of dealing established by defendant pursuant to which payments of premium were accepted after the due date and subsequent to the grace period. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order denying defendant’s motion to set aside the jury’s verdict dismissed. There is no such order. Young, Cars-well, Johnston and Taylor, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., concurs for dismissal of the appeal from the order, but dissents from the affirmance of the judgment and votes for reversal and dismissal of complaint on the ground there was a default in the payment of premium which was not waived by reason of a course of dealing between the parties.

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

Action upon an insurance policy which defendant claimed lapsed by reason of non-payment of the premium [829]*829on the due date and which plaintiff claimed was in full force and effect by reason of a course of dealing established by defendant pursuant to which payments of premium were accepted after the due date and subsequent to the grace period. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order denying defendant’s motion to set aside the jury’s verdict dismissed. There is no such order. Young, Cars-well, Johnston and Taylor, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., concurs for dismissal of the appeal from the order, but dissents from the affirmance of the judgment and votes for reversal and dismissal of complaint on the ground there was a default in the payment of premium which was not waived by reason of a course of dealing between the parties.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D. 828, 290 N.Y.S. 838, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/traynor-v-john-hancock-mutual-life-insurance-nyappdiv-1936.