Durr v. Amsterdam Casualty Co.
New York Supreme Court
Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the City Court of the city of Hew York dismissing the complaint at the close of the plaintiff’s case, and also from an order denying a motion for a new trial.
1Opinion of the Court
Seabury, J. the
The determination of this appeal must- turn upon the solution of the question whether under the terms of *110the policy the beneficiary had a vested interest or whether she had a mere expectancy. If the beneficiary had a vested interest, then 'Southwell v. Gray, 35 Misc. Rep. 740, and the authorities therein cited have no application to this case. The policy upon which the action is brought contains no provision permitting the assured to change the beneficiary. The defendant is an insurance corporation conducting business under article 2 of the Insurance Law. It is significant that…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Central Bank of Washington v. HumeSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Garner v. . Germania Life Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1888
- Southwell v. GrayNew York Supreme Court · 1901
- Sangunitto v. GoldeyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1903
- Sterrit v. LeeNew York Supreme Court · 1898
3Cited by1 opinion
- Dunn v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1910