Gilman v. Curtis
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial. Suit in equity. The plaintiff sought a decree, declaring that she was the owner of a policy of insurance upon the life of one Tucker, deceased, and entitled to collect and receive the amount of the insurance.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial. Suit in equity. The plaintiff sought a decree, declaring that she was the owner of a policy of insurance upon the life of one Tucker, deceased, and entitled to collect and receive the amount of the insurance. The defendant in his answer claimed that he was the owner of the policy by assignment; that it was assigned to him as collateral security for moneys advanced and to be advanced ; and that the sums advanced by him exceeded the amount of the policy. The amount of…
1Opinion of the CourtRoss, J.
-Taking the most favorable view for the plaintiff of this case, as presented, it is clear that the decree entered in the court below cannot stand. Conceding that it appears with sufficient certainty that the policy in question was assigned by the plaintiff to the defendant, to be held by him as collateral security *117for certain advances to be and which were made by him, the legal title to the policy passed by the assignment to the defendant. The court should not, therefore, have adjudged the plaintiff the owner of the policy, and entitled to receive from the insurance company the whole amount…
2Cited by19 opinions
- Learned v. CastleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Exchange Bank v. LohSupreme Court of Georgia · 1898
- Curtiss v. BachmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Bridge v. Connecticut Mutual Life InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
- McCarthy v. Mt. Tecarte Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1896
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.