Life Casualty Ins. Co. v. Peacock
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Opinion of the CourtThomas, J.
The suit was upon a policy of insurance, and resulted in small verdict for plaintiff under the disability clause of said instrument.
If the complaint was duly challenged by demurrer for lack of averments of fact, that the premiums had been duly paid on said policy, and that the same was in full force and effect at the time of the injury, under rule 45. these facts being fully supplied by the evidence, the overruling of demurrer will not cause a reversal. Best Park Co. v. Rollins, 192 Ala. 534, 68 So. 417, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 929; Vance v. Morgan, 198 Ala. 149, 73 So. 406; Clinton v. Bradford, 200…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- McMillan v. AikenSupreme Court of Alabama · 1920
- Best Park & Amusement Co. v. RollinsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1915
- Clinton Mining Co. v. BradfordSupreme Court of Alabama · 1917
- Birmingham Southern R. Co. v. GoodwynSupreme Court of Alabama · 1919
- Sneck v. Travellers' InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1895
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Muse v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1939
- Morgan v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaWashington Supreme Court · 1976
- Turner v. BlantonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1965
- Ridgely Operating Co. v. WhiteSupreme Court of Alabama · 1933
- Huff v. Vulcan Life and Accident Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1968
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.