Legal Opinion

Knarston v. Manhattan Life Insurance

California Supreme Court

Decided March 20, 1899No. S. F. No. 1114PublishedCited by 30 opinions

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. A. A. Sanderson, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtGaroutte, J.

This is an action brought to recover upon a policy of life insurance. The defense is, that the policy had become forfeited prior to the death of the insured by reason of the nonpayment of the fourth semi-annual premium. The policy contained the usual forfeiture clause upon failure occurring in the payment of premiums when due. The defendant company, being a New York corporation, was required by the laws of that state to give a written notice to the' insured at a stated time before the premium became due and payable, notifying him of the fact that such premium would become due and payable upon…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Insurance Co. v. WilkinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
  2. Titus v. . Glens Falls Insurance CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
  3. Murray v. Home Benefit Life Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  4. Palmer v. . Phoenix Mutual Life Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1881
  5. Hartford Life & Annuity Insurance v. Hayden's Adm'rCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1890

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. Austin v. Hallmark Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1943
  2. J. Frank & Co. v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.California Supreme Court · 1917
  3. Taylor v. HamiltonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  4. Page v. Washington Mutual Life Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  5. Turner v. Redwood Mutual Life Assn.California Court of Appeal · 1936

25 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