Ingersoll v. Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York
Appellate Court of Illinois
Assumpsit. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Merritt W. Pinckney, Judge, presiding.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Mack
In our judgment the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in Ins. Co. v. Hill, 193 U. S. 551, and of our Supreme Court in Rose v. Ins. Co., 240 Ill. 45, are conclusive against appellant’s contentions that certain notices required to be given a New York policy holder under Hew York law are essential in this case as conditions precedent to forfeiture because of the statement in the policy that it is to be governed by the law of New York.
This policy was applied for and delivered in Colorado and is a Colorado contract.
The vital questions in the case are:
1st: Did this policy become…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- New York Life Insurance v. StathamSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Mutual Life Insurnace v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
- Rose v. Mutual Life Insurance of New YorkIllinois Supreme Court · 1909
- Gruwell v. National Council Knights & Ladies of SecurityMissouri Court of Appeals · 1907
- Weston v. State Mutual Life Assurance Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1908
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Blume v. Pittsburg Life & Trust Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1914
- Bolton v. Standard Life InsuranceAppellate Court of Illinois · 1920
- Bittinger v. New York Life InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Millar v. Western Union Life InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1919
- Blume v. Pittsburgh Life & Trust Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1913
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.