Case ID: ad_127/html/0553-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      McLaughlin, J.:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bessie Sodekson and Sarah Schneider, Respondents, v. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company, Appellant.
    First Department,
    July 8, 1908.
    Evidence—assignment —legal conclusion.
    In an action on an insurance policy the plaintiffs introduced in evidence the policy and the assignment to them. The company put in evidence a reassignment from the plaintiffs to the widow of the insured, in whose possession the ' policy was at the time of the death of the insured, and proved the genuineness of the signatures. This proof was not contradicted. The only proof by the plaintiffs relating to the- validity of the reassignment was that in answer to a question whether they had assigned their claim under the policy to anybody, one answered “no;” the other, “never.”
    
      Held, that these answers were legal conclusions, and a verdict should have been directed for the insurance company.
    Appeal by the defendant, the Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiffs, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Hew York on the 4th day of February, 1908, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 7th day of February, 1908, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.
    
      Benjamin G. Paskus, for the appellant.
    
      Henry W. Bridges, for the respondents.
   McLaughlin, J.:

In July, 1876, the. defendant issued a policy of life insurance upon the life of Morris S. Schneider, which was immediately thereafter assigned to the plaintiffs in this action. Subsequently Schneider married and it is claimed that the plaintiffs reassigned their interest in the policy to the wife. Schneider died in May, 1907, and his widow filed with the defendant the original policy, the assignment tó the plaintiffs, and two other papers which áre alleged to reassign their interest to her, together with the necessary proofs of loss; and the amount of the policy was thereupon paid to her. The plaintiffs in this action thereafter filed proofs of loss and made a demand that the insurance company pay to them the amount called for by the policy, which was refused and thereupon this action was brought to recover the same. They had a verdict, and from the judgment entered thereon and an order denying a motion, for a new trial the defendant appeals.

At- the trial the plaintiffs introduced in evidence the policy,, the assignment to them, and the respondent Sodekson testified, in answer to a quéstion as to whether she had ever assigned her claim-under the policy to anyone, “Ho.” The respondent Schneider testified in answer to a similar question, “Hever:” This was the only proof they gave which related to the validity of the reassignments at the time of the trial. The answers to the questions did not state any facts but were at most legal conclusions drawn from the facts stated in the questions.

The defendant put in evidence a reassignment from each of the plaintiffs to the insured’s widow, and. proved by two witnesses that the signatures thereto were the genuine signatures of the respondents. This proof was not denied or contradicted in any way, nor did they at any time deny that their-signatures to the reassignments were not genuine. The fact, therefore, at the conclusion of the trial, that they had reassigned the policy to the insured’s widow was undenied, and this taken in connection with the further fact that the policy was in her possession at the time of the death- of the insured, fully justified the defendant in paying to her the amount called for by the policy.

There is no evidence to sustain a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs; on the contrary, a verdict should have been directed'for the defendant.

The judgment and order appealed from, therefore, must be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.

Ingraham, Laughlin, Houghton and Scott, JJ., concurred.

Judgment and order reversed, new trial ordered, costs to appellant to abide event.