New York Like Ins. v. Montgomery
Mississippi Supreme Court
Appeal from the circuit court of Warren county. Hon. E. L. Brien, Judge. Suit by Mrs. Lucy L- Montgomery against the New York Life Insurance company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Appellee brought an action in assumpsit against the appellant, based upon two policies of insurance upon the life of her deceased husband, David Montgomery.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the circuit court of Warren county. Hon. E. L. Brien, Judge. Suit by Mrs. Lucy L- Montgomery against the New York Life Insurance company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Appellee brought an action in assumpsit against the appellant, based upon two policies of insurance upon the life of her deceased husband, David Montgomery. The policies, which were identical and each for the sum of one thousand dollars, were applied for August 11, 1915,. and delivered September 9, 1915, and on October 24th following the delivery of the policies the insured died of cmgima…
1Opinion of the CourtHolden, J.
This ease comes within the rules of law announced in Fidelity Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Elmore, 111 Miss. 137, 71 So 305; Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Grant, 86 Miss. 565, 38 So. 502, 109 Am. St. Rep. 723, 4 Ann. Cas. 556; Liverpool, etc., Ins. Co. v. Farnsworth Lumber Co., 72 Miss. 555, 17 So. 445; Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Crenshaw, 186 Ala. 460, 65 So. 65; Mitchell v. Ætna Insurance Co., 111 Miss. 253, 71 So. 382.
The question of fraud on the part of the insured was properly submitted to the jury under the conflicting evidence, and we find no reversible error in the record.
Affirmed.
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Fidelity Mutual Life Insurance v. ElmoreMississippi Supreme Court · 1916
- Massachusetts Mut. L. Ins. v. CrenshawSupreme Court of Alabama · 1914
- Liverpool & London & Globe Insurance v. Farnsworth Lumber Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1895
- Mitchell v. Ætna InsuranceMississippi Supreme Court · 1916
- Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad v. GrantMississippi Supreme Court · 1905