Case ID: ny-st-rep_36/html/0194-01.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

Francis X. Brennan, Ex’r, App’lt, v. George W. Crouch, Jr., Impl’d, Resp’t.
    
    
      (Court of Appeals,
    
    
      Filed February 24, 1891.)
    
    Insurance (Life)—When assignment of policy will be considered a SALE AND NOT A MORTGAGE.
    In an action to compel a reassignment of a paid-up policy of life insurance it was found that plaintiff’s testator assigned the policy to defendants in consideration of its surrender value, and received back an agreement to sell the same to him on or before a specified day on repayment of that ' sum, and that if payment was not made on that day they would pay him. $100 on demand in full of all claims, and that no payment was made on the day specified. The court found that the transaction was a sale of the policy and not a mortgage and dismissed the complaint. No exceptions were taken to the findings of fact. Meld, that the facts found justified the conclusion of law and that there was no error.
    Appeal from judgment of the supreme court, general term, fifth department, affirming judgment of special term dismissing the complaint, with costs.
    
      Albert H. Harris, for app’lt; Wm. Nath!I Cogswell, for resp’t
    
      
       Affirming 32 N. Y. State Rep., 273.
    
   Per Curiam

The findings of fact in this case were not excepted tó, and are not disputed. They justify the conclusions of law. We have carefully considered the exceptions taken during the progress of the trial and find that they point out no error.

The judgment must, therefore, be affirmed, but, under the circumstances, without costs.

All concur.