Legal Opinion

Brainard v. Brainard

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 16, 1936No. Civ. 10106PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSturtevant, J.

As guardian of Mrs. Brainard, an insane person, the plaintiff recovered a judgment against the defendant on a life insurance policy, and from that judgment the defendant has appealed. The defendant makes just one point. It complains because the trial court refused to receive certain evidence which it claims constituted a complete defense, to wit, payment of the claim sued on by the plaintiff.

Prior to May 29, 1932, Raymond L. Brainard and Gertrude B. Brainard were husband and wife, residing at Santa Cruz. On the date last mentioned Mr. Brainard died. For some years he had been an employee of…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Wuesthoff v. . Germania Life Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1888
  2. Murphy v. Superior Court of Santa Clara CountyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  3. Whalen v. VallierIdaho Supreme Court · 1928
  4. Schomaker v. PetersenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
  5. In Re Chin Mee HoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. County of Los Angeles v. FrisbieCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Guardianship of MinnicarCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
  3. People v. NestCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
  4. Hagen v. SilvaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
  5. Roland F. Samson, III, as Guardian Ad Litem of Jeffrey Jake Werneth and Shelby Lee Werneth, Minors v. Unum Life Insurance Company of AmericaMississippi Supreme Court · 2020

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API