Aitken v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 25 January 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 11.,11. |
| Citation | 10 A.2d 745,124 N.J.L. 58 |
| Parties | AITKEN v. JOHN HANCOCK MUT. LIFE INS. CO. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Action on two life policies having a clause of extra indemnity for death by accident by James Aitken against the John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company. From a judgment of the Supreme Court, 122 N.J.L. 436, 6 A.2d 133, which affirmed a judgment of the district court in favor of the plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Reversed.
Drewen & Nugent, John Drewen, and John Nugent, all of Jersey City, for defendant-appellant.
Charles A. Rooney, of jersey City, for plaintiff-respondent.
The appeal in this case is from a judgment in the District Court of the Second Judicial District of Hudson County, affirmed in the Supreme Court, 122 N.J.L. 436, 6 A.2d 133. The holding was that Mary Aitken, the insured, met her death through external accidental means. If we could disturb the finding on the weight of evidence, we would do so because the proofs from the mouth of her attending physician clearly demonstrate that the deceased died of coronary occlusion due to a long-standing disease of the arteries.
The official death certificate recites the cause of death as accidental injuries received from a fall from a ladder. Such certificate was not made by the attending physician, but by the acting county physician.
Revised Statutes 1937, 40:21-24, N.J.S.A. 40:21-24, provides in part that: "In all cases of death in prison, and all violent, sudden or casual deaths within the county, the county physician shall view the body, and make all proper inquiries respecting the cause and manner of the death, for the purpose of ascertaining whether an inquest should be held." Presumably, the county physician examined the deceased pursuant to this statute, but made little or no inquiry such as would have revealed the true situation.
Revised Statutes, 26:6-8, N.J.S.A. 26:6-8, provides that The duty to make a death certificate devolves upon the county physician when there is no attending physician. Where, as here, there was an attending physician the particulars should have been supplied by him.
The other tribunals, however, felt that the certificate improperly made without regard to law or truth must be given prima facie...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McAllister v. Board of Ed., Town of Kearny
... ... facie evidence of the facts stated.' Aitken ... v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 124 ... ...
-
Macko v. Herbert Hinchman & Son, A--98
...occurred while decedent was working. It follows that it is not prima facie evidence of that fact. Aitken v. John Hancock, etc., Co., 124 N.J.L. 58, 10 A.2d 745 (E. & A.1940); Kramerman v. Simon, 131 N.J.L. 250, 36 A.2d 132 The death of an employee from accident, before he has an opportunity......
-
Biro v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America
...iterate the public record exception to the hearsay rule now embodied in Evidence Rule 63(15). See Aitken v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 124 N.J.L. 58, 60, 10 A.2d 745 (E. & A. 1940). Recently our Supreme Court considered these legal principles in a manslaughter case, State v. Reddick......
-
Anzano v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
... ... See the opinion of Mr. Justice Bodine in Aitken v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co. filed since the trial here and ... ...