Legal Opinion

Maynard v. Locomotive Engineers' Mutual Life & Accident Insurance

Utah Supreme Court

Decided November 4, 1897No. 858PublishedCited by 9 opinions

Appeal from the Second district court, Weber county. H. H. Rolapp, Judge. Action by Charles Maynard against the Locomotive Engineers’ Mutual Life & Accident Insurance Association on a contract of insurance. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

1Opinion of the Court

Bartch, J.:

At the trial of this cause, the defendant objected to the introduction of any evidence, on the ground that the amended complaint did not state a cause of action. The objection was overruled, and the action of the court is ¿assigned as error, and raises the most important question in the case, which is whether the plaintiff has a right to recover, under the defendant’s by-law in force at the time he received the injury of which he complains, the same having been amended before the cause of action became complete. The by-law in question reads as follows: “Any member, while engaged in…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hoffman v. Ætna Fire InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1865
  2. Groome v. Ogden City Corp.Utah Supreme Court · 1894
  3. Maynard v. Locomotive Engineers' Mutual Life & Accident InsuranceUtah Supreme Court · 1897

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Continental Casualty Co. v. LinnCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1928
  2. Hague v. Nephi Irrigation Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1898
  3. Order of United Commercial Travelers v. KnorrCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1940
  4. Snelgrove v. EarlUtah Supreme Court · 1898
  5. Wells v. DavisUtah Supreme Court · 1900

4 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