Osborne v. Home Life Insurance
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco and from an order denying a new trial. William B. Daingerfield, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtVan Dyke, J.
This action is upon a life insurance policy for five thousand dollars, issued by the defendant, a Hew York company, in Hew York, October 4, 1888, insuring the life of the husband of the plaintiff, Elihu C. Osborne, for five thousand dollars, made payable to the plaintiff. The policy called for the payment of an annual premium of one hundred and seventy-four dollars and seventy cents. On issuing the policy this sum was paid, and the first and second annual payments of the same amount were made. The complaint sets out the policy and also incorporates the nonforfeiture law of the state of Hew…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Griffith v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co.California Supreme Court · 1894
- De Frece v. National Life InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Baxter v. Brooklyn Life InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
3Cited by7 opinions
- Estate of LundCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
- People v. NorcrossCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
- McManus v. Red Salmon Canning Co.California Court of Appeal · 1918
- Browne v. John Hancock Mutual Life InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
- Mutual Life Ins. v. HillCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1899
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.