Pierson v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance
California Court of Appeal
1Dissent
*92HERNDON, J.
I dissent. In my opinion, the majority erroneously hold as a matter of law that respondent’s asserted acceptance of a check for $21.61 mailed by appellant on May 31, 1963, the last day of grace for the payment of the $41.61 quarterly premium due on May 1, 1963, operated as a waiver of respondent’s right to insist upon full payment of said premium within the grace period.
In my view, four basic errors underlie this mistaken holding : (1) failure to recognize that in this case, as in most eases, the question whether or not there was a waiver is a question of fact; (2) a misconception…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Crestline Mobile Homes Manufacturing Co. v. Pacific Finance Corp.California Supreme Court · 1960
- Sawyer v. City of San DiegoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
- Scott v. Federal Life InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
- Dittert v. FischerOregon Supreme Court · 1934
- Huttlinger v. Far West Enterprises, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1955
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.