New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1854-06-27
SUPERIOR COuRT-GENERAL rkkM-Beiore Judges Duti
BoswoRIH and EMMETT.


srppRIoR COuRT-GexrRAL rksM-Beiore Judges DuGs
BoswoRIH and EMMETT.
IAPORTANT LIFE INSURANCE CASE
John The Mutual Life Insurance Company Of Ne"
BY THE CouR1-DuER, i've are entirely satisfied
that testimony Mrs Move. ought not to have been sdmd
1nae ibe Construction which we gwen
sss Of the case was nompsen pH Ir fpn sa
p so) She cole cesiui cue trus having an nleda
sh The whole definite portion +Soc OF the sum tina
But although she was Improperly admitted as witness, It Oy no
verdict by subject to the opinion of the Court
s5dence 70 SUSAN IT, the plaintiff juds.
mnt Striking 'oi he, tssimony entire a mus De II D9
That upon The proof thst the plaintiff was entitled to YER
instruct the Jury We exceedingly doubt whether evidence Of
name ws nee sv to be syen other than the assignment
do.ed uIon policies The argument on the part Of the
osrsy fouroed that Of Charles Noyes the assured his
N.Y. from that lime became void merely
police pnif bad himself an nfurabe n;eIes, which
plaintiff had interest in the lie OF Noyes would have
ten,h' !he pe M x bv yps Of an ssnInen and as snch
recovery OF was the existence OF such AL interest 'hA'
IL manifest that re objection wholly the assumption
policy illegal and void such now the
COZ BE lo And such also the law in England by force OF a
sltSa, .h nspsnce, exceri whee the persons ms ring
the life death of the person insured "a
or has been the law well
wager policy CONTRACT just as binding uo1 the Insurer as
policy upon aiest a. the s s no" the . Of the
mon had been sercd in Connectcn ana Is 10y lt -" o.
Connecticut that the legal construction and effect o. Tue
SUI arc eS and indeed insisted On by the counsel the
defendants upon tee and not a. eli doubted by our
however rOr c1peden; place
our decision upon this gromd -.
In deveIins our we sss assume i when the %
person whose benefit The policy was effected or = he'd Is JUS. as
the rccyery Of by the law Of this State The plaintiff
h de Of ne deceased and question his night
tain the action such trustee will be inst considered
That wife insusbe interest in the life Of her hnbend IS
denied and is needless authorities prove that
policy effected by him his own life for her otneht vad
contract nor ubstns policy upon hs own HE may be as
In Soh he.e eases husband die during the term covered BY
the policy the sum insured IN Lew OF e9ay belongs 10 me %e
the trust expressed that OF her None of hes positions
or ere ie he sncy Of the evden, 70 prove
Nyes and The sht Of se pAn 70 manan Lac avon
prspeIly admitted evidence il denied that these questions sie
determined and his sb to udsmen; 9 ihs whole amount winch
Ofhe Of Mrs Ncy in one Of The policies No 99 there
the declaration tTus. II Telhio
tot Ii appears by entry the registry of the Company made a
ne tS ,ns ISeY "' bt She wa. therefore he eqa
able q mis- policy ssoon as was issued and u 10
msrtt however that rIon this rIooi s4o.e 'he PAM.
woud be entitled to recover: On iHe contrary Is
hewns Mrs Noyss the parry il interest she woaG be
party 70 he se;ien HeI n'ers IN ne 0ine p s
the dec to be proved TO show the i OF Inc
plsinf 10 the alone OF an express ifa
orLion al the proof Of the due execution OF these nl
which the requires and ms proof "hen
uuc nradieted, conclusive.
tn festiuopv Waterbury positive that both the pspe
are the hand plaintiff and thai they came INTO m
m haad Of Mrs Moves although lot delivered 10
Kim until after the suit As iner5 was no
either Of the this evidence was SUI
be genuine and proof OF that they were So
,. a, M in the could be justly demanded was
,nor,h 10 euii,s them be had in evidence 49,.
p Inc tA me the defendsns objected TO men re
:, evidence upon the sounds Firsi that the were tA V
s,ne OF plaintiff second that there was no evidence o. men
the commencement o. the lii We are per
5 ,h, neither objections The nrst whie1 Se
~ >, effect abandoned upon the Gsa
sr, te.ore rs neanns that these OF
-. 80 hv the plsina with his and mere
o. 20 he ee,ed the ground As the ora
~. " r,,,y In his own favor, the truth Is dneStIy
H. His title both the policies sIon tns psse
~ hs ,.,ueu made 10 him Was anquAhec sno .e
~ th dec ssion TO sho" mat nesfy ne
ho interest vested in another Inc paper were
no, ~. ia the the objection eui the eVaenee
hs cs.r ns ,n Ma who a. the person ioi Nnse
bcretf the prosecuted had the iisn " az
h.ir productior Another short answer TO the
all here the brought by the trustee OF ~
whether oral or witten
proved maintain the action and nence
hold that such an action eao -. -,
tanned all Such decision would be virtual fePeAi" ~ f
the Code by which the action given ,h., IN.
second objection, that there was no
declarations OF existence Psvions 20 ne
Of the suit the reply Is that sneh evidence %
b gwen nsr judging from our own esPsnsnee aae