Legal Opinion

Young v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Franklin County, Civil Division

Decided June 25, 1930Published

1Opinion of the CourtKing, J.

Heard upon general demurrer and demurrer to the reply and amendment to the reply on the ground that the reply and amendment to reply on their face are insufficient in law.

Learned counsel for the defendant insurance company have furnished the court with an excellent memorandum in support of their contention. They have presented their contention in a clear and convincing manner and therefore merit commendation.

Plaintiff seeks .to recover a sum of money which he claims to be due him from the defendant on a life insurance policy issued to him by the defendant company. The facts alleged in the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Buck v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United StatesWashington Supreme Court · 1917
  2. Putnam v. PutnamSupreme Court of Kansas · 1919
  3. Stroock Plush Co. v. TalcottAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1908
  4. Federal Life Insurance v. BarnettIndiana Court of Appeals · 1919
  5. Nasby Building Co. v. Walbridge Building Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1916

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API