Ritchie v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Supreme Court of Kansas
1DissentSmith, J.
I find myself unable to agree with the conclusion reached by a majority of the court in ordering judgment for defendant. I agree that the testimony of the plaintiff as to the statement of insured should not have been admitted. This ruling, however, would only require a new trial. I cannot agree that the representations pleaded and proved do not constitute actionable fraud. In the first place, the letter which plaintiff testified she received from defendant cannot be divorced from the conversations had by plaintiff with the agents of defendant at her home along in the early part of October nor…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Stewart v. Wyoming Cattle Ranche Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Madison Trust Co. v. HellecksonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1934
- Newton v. National Life Ins. Co. U. S. A.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1926
- Wolfe v. A. E. Kusterer & Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1934
- Kenyon v. National Life Ass'n of HartfordAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1899
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.