Case Name: FRANK H. SCHWARTZ AND LOUISE SCHWARTZ, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1968-02-14
Citations: 99 N.J. Super. 223
Docket Number: 
Parties: FRANK H. SCHWARTZ AND LOUISE SCHWARTZ, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Superior Court Reports
Volume: 99
Pages: 223–224

Head Matter:
FRANK H. SCHWARTZ AND LOUISE SCHWARTZ, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
Argued February 5, 1968
Decided February 14, 1968.
Before Judges Gaulkin, Lewis and Kolovsky.
Mr. Edward J. Russo argued the cause for defendant-appellant (Messrs. Nugent, Russo & Tumulty, attorneys).
Mr. Frederick Klaessig argued the cause for plaintiffs-respondents.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The facts of the case and the terms of the policy are set forth in Judge Botter's opinion reported in 96 N. J. Super. 520 (Law Div. 1967). He concluded "Since the facts before the court are not in dispute in material respects, plaintiffs' motion for judgment could have been granted as a matter of law." We agree and affirm.
Since plaintiffs' motion for judgment should have been granted, it is not necessary to discuss defendant's contention that the trial court erred in the manner of its use of R. R. 4: 50-1 and 2 in submitting the case to the jury.
Affirmed.