Case ID: misc_138/html/0293-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Nellie Lytwyn, Appellant, v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company of Boston, Massachusetts, Respondent.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    November 10, 1930.
    
      Weinberg & Weinberg, for the appellant.
    
      Frederick C. Tanner [Thomas McCall of counsel], for the respondent.
   Per Curiam.

The only misrepresentations asserted in the answer were the alleged false answers to question 4 of the application.

The physician’s certificate attached to proof of death related solely to the doctor’s prescribing for or attending ” the deceased for certain diseases.” The testimony given by the certifying physician on the trial did not show that deceased_either had or had been treated for a “ disease ” of the bladder or prostate or heart trouble.” It merely showed that incidental to other treatment the doctor found a slightly enlarged prostate gland such as every man of the age of deceased had. This, of course, did not show a disease of that organ. Nor could a slightly enlarged heart — nothing unusual ” be deemed a heart trouble ” without further proof on the subject.

Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and judgment directed for plaintiff for the amount demanded in the complaint, with interest and costs.

All concur; present, Lydon, Levy and Callahan, JJ.