Pendleton v. Knickerbocker Life Ins.
United States Circuit Court
Motion for New Trial. This was an action on a policy of life insurance for $10-000,-and there was a verdict for the plaintiffs. The defences made and the facts of the case appear in a report of the, trial found in 5 Fed.
Read the full summary
Motion for New Trial. This was an action on a policy of life insurance for $10-000,-and there was a verdict for the plaintiffs. The defences made and the facts of the case appear in a report of the, trial found in 5 Fed. Rep. 238. The charge of the court will be found in that report, and, in addition to the exceptions taken to it on the motion for a new trial, it was assigned for error that the court refused the following requests for instructions to the jury, offered by tho defendant company: (1) That the reception of this draft for $325 by the defendant, on account of premiums, imposed upon…
1Opinion of the Court
Hammond, D. J.
The most mature reflection has not convinced me that there was any error occurring on the trial of this case for which a new trial should be granted. The defendant corporation, in order to avoid liability upon the policy, is compelled to assume that they had absolutely no duty whatever to perform in relation to the draft, and that what they did do towards presenting it was merely ex gratia. It was conceded at the hearing that if the money had been in the hands of Greenwood & Co. to pay the draft on the fourteenth day of October, 1871, when it was due, the company would have been…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Insurance Co. v. NortonSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- New York Life Insurance v. StathamSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Insurance Co. v. WolffSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Insurance Co. v. Young's AdministratorSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Baker v. . the Union Mutual Life Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1871
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Behling v. Northwestern National Life InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1903