Williams v. Travelers' Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 03 December 1918 |
Citation | 168 Wis. 456,169 N.W. 959 |
Parties | WILLIAMS v. TRAVELERS' INS. CO. |
Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
For majority opinion, see 169 N. W. 609.
I understand it is held by the opinion of the court in this case, first, that there, as in the Lundberg Case, 162 Wis. 474, 156 N. W. 482, Ann. Cas. 1916D, 667, a question of fact is presented as to whether the policy in question conforms typographically to the requirements of the statute, the decision of the commissioner on that question is final, and cannot be collaterally attacked; and, second, that where, as in the present case, there is no question of fact, but simply a plain violation of the command of the statute, the approval of the form by the commissioner does not help the form in the least, but it may be attacked in any court in which it comes in question for its failure to comply with the plain commands of the law.
The result is that (as applied to the facts then present) the rule stated in the Lundberg Case was right, and is approved, but that it should not be extended to a case like the present, where there is no question of fact to be passed upon.
With this understanding of the effect of the present decision, I concur in the reversal.
ROSENBERRY, J. I concur in the views of the Chief Justice.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Williams v. Travelers' Ins. Co.
...of the circuit court reversed, with directions to enter judgment in accordance herewith.WINSLOW, C. J., and ROSENBERRY, J., concur. See 169 N. W. 959. * State Report Title: Williams v. Travelers Insurance ...
-
Krempel v. Noltze
...page 86.5 See, e.g., State ex rel. Wisconsin Inspection Bureau v. Whitman (1928), 196 Wis. 472, 220 N.W. 929; Williams v. Travelers' Ins. Co. (1919), 168 Wis. 456, 169 N.W. 609, 169 N.W. 959; Lundberg v. Interstate Business Men's Accident Ass'n (1916), 162 Wis. 474, 156 N.W. is a judicial q......