Legal Opinion · Dissent

Bradshaw v. . Mutual Life Ins. Co.

New York Court of Appeals

Decided May 24, 1912Published

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered December 2, 1910, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a verdict directed by the court. The action was brought to recover the amount of an insurance policy issued by the defendant on the life of the plaintiffs’ testator and the contest is between plaintiffs and the residuary legatees of the testator’s wife, Corrie J. Bradshaw.

Read the full summary

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered December 2, 1910, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a verdict directed by the court. The action was brought to recover the amount of an insurance policy issued by the defendant on the life of the plaintiffs’ testator and the contest is between plaintiffs and the residuary legatees of the testator’s wife, Corrie J. Bradshaw. No question is made by the defendant that it is liable to pay the amount of the policy to one of the two sets of claimants. While…

1Dissent

Cullen, Ch. J.

(dissenting). I think that in no view of this case can the judgment appealed from be affirmed. If we assume that the plaintiffs could not recover the amount of the insurance upon the life of their testator either because the agreement to transfer the policy from the testator’s deceased wife to himself was void for want of legal power or because the agent was without authority to make it, then the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the amount of premiums paid by their testator after the decease of his wife with the interest thereon. It was not necessary that they should bring…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Allerton v. . AllertonNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
  2. Clemence v. . City of AuburnNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
  3. Paltey v. . EganNew York Court of Appeals · 1910
  4. McCafferty v. Duyvil & Port Morris RailroadCommission of Appeals · 1874
  5. Pneumatic Signal Co. v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1910

1 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