Coffin v. New York Life Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 29 December 1903 |
| Docket Number | 490. |
| Citation | 127 F. 555 |
| Parties | COFFIN v. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
William P. Sheffield, Jr., for plaintiff in error.
Rathbone Gardner (Richard B. Comstock, on the brief), for defendant in error.
Before PUTNAM, Circuit Judge, and ALDRICH and LOWELL, District Judges.
This was an action upon a policy of life insurance. The plaintiff put in evidence the policy, and made undisputed proof of death. Thereafter the defendant offered in evidence a receipt signed with the name of the insured, and expressed to be for 'inspection.' Newman, the defendant's agent testified that this receipt was drawn up by himself, signed by the insured in his presence, and delivered to him by the insured upon his handing over the policy to the latter. In rebuttal the plaintiff offered evidence of a conversation on the day of the receipt in which the agent said that he had done a good stroke of business, had delivered the policy to the insured, and had in his pocket what was good for the premium. The administrator of the insured, who was familiar with his signature, testified on cross-examination by the defendant's counsel that he did not consider the signature to the receipt was Coffin's signature; that he never saw him sign his name that way; that he would not say it was not Coffin's signature, but had never seen him sign in that way.
Being called by the plaintiff in rebuttal, he identified various undisputed signatures of Coffin, but these were not offered in evidence, and he was asked nothing further concerning the genuineness of the signature to the receipt. No other testimony concerning the alleged signature of the insured was introduced. The presiding judge directed a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff duly excepted.
The plaintiff contended that there was evidence to show that the receipt was not signed by Coffin, and so that there was evidence that the delivery of the policy to him was unconditional. By proving that the policy, complete in form came from Coffin's custody, the plaintiff made a prima facie case; yet, after all the testimony was in, the burden of proving delivery still rested upon her. See Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 187 U.S. 467, 23 Sup.Ct. 189 47 L.Ed. 261. Upon the whole, we are of opinion that she has not sustained that burden by evidence sufficient to warrant a finding in her favor upon this essential...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bernblum v. Travelers Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn.
...receipt, was properly receivable in evidence to prove that there had been no delivery or acceptance of the policy. Coffin v. New York Life Ins. Co., 127 F. 555; Rey v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 44 N.Y.S. Harris v. Travelers Ins. Co., 80 F.2d 127. (2) The court erred in admitting the testi......
-
Missouri State Life Insurance Company v. Salisbury
...Assur. Soc., 44 N.Y. 745; New v. Germania Fire Ins. Co., 171 Ind. 33; Amos-Richia v. Northwestern Mut. Life, 152 F. 192; Coffin v. New York Life Ins. Co., 127 F. 555; Gordon v. Prudential Ins. Co., 231 Pa. Harnickell v. N. Y. Life Ins. Co., 111 N.Y. 390. (2) The application, which was a par......
-
Roberta Mfg. Co. v. Royal Exchange Assur. Co.
...Powell v. Insurance Co., 153 N.C. 124, 69 S.E. 12; Agen v. Insurance Co., 105 Wis. 217, 80 N.W. 1020, 76 Am. St. Rep. 905; Coffin v. Insurance Co., 127 F. 555, 62 C. A. 415; Andrus v. Casualty Co., 91 Minn. 358, 98 N.W. 200. Our conclusion, therefore, is that the judge was right in setting ......
-
Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. NATIONAL BANK OF C.
...Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 187 U.S. 467, 23 S.Ct. 189, 47 L.Ed. 261; Bostick v. New York Life Ins. Co., 5 Cir., 284 F. 256; Coffin v. New York Life Ins. Co., 1 Cir., 127 F. 555; Reliance Life Ins. Co. v. Gulley's Adm'x, 134 Va. 468, 114 S.E. 551; New v. Germania Fire Ins. Co., 171 Ind. 33, 85 N.E.......