Insurance Company v. Gridley
Decision Date | 01 October 1879 |
Citation | 25 L.Ed. 746,100 U.S. 614 |
Parties | INSURANCE COMPANY v. GRIDLEY |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Edward Salomon for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. Robert Sewell, contra.
This is an action upon a policy of insurance insuring the life of Fayette R. Gridley in the sum of $10,000, for the benefit of his wife, the defendant in error.
The policy sets forth that it was issued 'in consideration of the representations made in the application therefor and of the premium,' &c. It sets forth, further, that 'if any of the statements or declarations in the application for this policy, and upon the faith of which it is issued, shall be found in any material respect untrue, then . . . this policy shall be null and void.'
The application was signed by the assured in behalf of himself and his wife. The first clause is as follows: 'An answer to each of the following questions is required from persons proposing to effect insurance in this company, which answers form the basis of this contract.' It concluded with the declaration
The application contained, among others, the following question: 'Have the person's (whose life is to be assured) parents, uncles, aunts, brothers, or sisters been afflicted with consumption, scrofula, insanity, epilepsy, disease of the heart, or any other hereditary disease?' The applicant answered:
It was proved on behalf of the company that Abraham Gridley, an uncle of the assured, was insane for more than a year preceding his death, and that he died in the Bloomingdale Insane Asylum upwards of twenty years before the application for the insurance here in question was made.
The testimony being closed, the counsel for the company asked the court to instruct the jury to find a verdict for the defendant. This was refused. The court thereupon instructed the jury to return a verdict for the plaintiff. The jury found as directed. The defendant duly excepted to the instruction given and to that refused, and sued out this writ.
The only question argued before us is whether the court erred in instructing the jury to find for the plaintiff. The solution of that question depends upon the construction and effect to be given to the interrogatory and the answer to which our attention was called by the counsel for the plaintiff in error.
It is a recognized rule in the construction of statutes, that 'a thing which is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Providence Life Assurance Society v. Reutlinger
... ... was void. 22 Wall. 47; 91 U.S. 510; Cook, Life Insurance, ... sec. 15; Bliss, Life Ins. secs. 34, 63-4-5, 126, 128, 129, ... 132; 13 A. 4; 50 N. J. Law ... Ill, 586. Great array of authority sustains the position that ... when an insurance company asks about complaints one has had, ... and in the same connection by what physician one has been ... both. As was well said by Mr. Justice Swayne, in ... Insurance Company v. Gridley , (100 U.S ... 614, 25 L.Ed. 746), 'The object of all symbols is to ... convey the meaning of ... ...
-
Jacob Hoffmann Brewing Co. v. McElligott
... ... second case, where suit was brought by the receivers of a ... railroad company against the Attorney General of the state of ... [259 F. 325] ... and the solicitor of the ... Court in United States v. Chase, supra ... In the ... case of Insurance Co. v. Gridley, 100 U.S. 614, 25 ... L.Ed. 746, an insurance company was defending a loss upon a ... ...
-
American Union Life Ins. Co. v. Judge
...Life Ins. Co., 59 N.Y. 557; Miller v. Confederation Life Assurance Co., 11 Ont. Rep. 120; affirmed, 14 Canada, S.C. Rep. 330; Ins. Co. v. Gridley, 100 U.S. 614; Mechanics' Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Guarantee of North America, 68 F. 459, 466; affirmed, 80 F. 766; Clapp v. Mass. Ben. Assn.,......
-
Hearin v. Standard Life Ins. Co.
...the four corners of the instrument or instruments creating it, what was the intention of the parties to the same. Insurance Co. v. Gridley, 100 U. S. 614, 615, 25 L. Ed. 746; Long v. Timms, 107 Mo. 512, 519, 17 S. W. 898. Subjecting the contracts in question to this test, it is very apparen......