Legal Opinion
Fairfield v. Union Life Insurance
Appellate Court of Illinois
Decided December 8, 1915No. Gen. No. 20,966PublishedCited by 12 opinions
Error to the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Richard S. Tuthill, Judge, presiding.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Pam
Defendant assigns five reasons in support of its contention for reversal, viz.:
“(1) That the court committed error in refusing to allow the defendant to prove the fraud practiced by the plaintiff in obtaining the policies, through the false representations made in the applications and which became warranties under the law as hereinafter shown.
“ (2) That the court erred in refusing to instruct a verdict for the defendant, both at the close of the plaintiff’s case and at the close of all the evidence, in that the plaintiff failed to prove as a part of its case a condition precedent to the right…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Continental Life Insurance v. RogersIllinois Supreme Court · 1887
- Royal Circle v. AchterrathIllinois Supreme Court · 1903
- Mutual Reserve Fund Life Ass'n v. AustinCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1905
- Flanigan v. Federal Life InsuranceIllinois Supreme Court · 1907
- Anders v. Life Insurance ClearingNebraska Supreme Court · 1901
3Cited by12 opinions
- Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. KudobaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
- National Life & Accident Insurance v. MartinCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1926
- Priest v. Kansas City Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Kansas · 1924
- Mid-Continent Life Ins. Co. v. HouseSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1932
- Interstate Life & Accident Insurance v. McMahonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1935
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.