Case Name: JANS v. WORKINGMAN'S CO-OPERATIVE ASS'N OF UNITED INSURANCE LEAGUE OF NEW YORK
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1894-11-20
Citations: 30 N.Y.S. 1057
Docket Number: 
Parties: JANS v. WORKINGMAN’S CO-OPERATIVE ASS’N OF UNITED INSURANCE LEAGUE OF NEW YORK.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 30
Pages: 1057–1057

Head Matter:
JANS v. WORKINGMAN’S CO-OPERATIVE ASS’N OF UNITED INSURANCE LEAGUE OF NEW YORK.
(City Court of New York, General Term.
November 20, 1894.)
Life Insurance—Previous Application.
In an action on a life insurance policy, breach of warranty cannot be predicated on the statement in an application made for another policy that insured had not made a previous application, where the application for the policy sued on contained no such statement.
Appeal from trial term.
Action by Christina Jans against the Workingman’s Co-operative Association of the United Insurance League of New York on a life insurance policy. From a judgment entered on a verdict in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before EHRLICH, C. J., and MCCARTHY, J.
W. B. Donikee, for appellant.
Goldfogle & Cohn,, for respondent.

Opinion:
EHRLICH, C. J.
The action was by the plaintiff, as the beneficiary named in a certain policy of $500, issued by the defendant. The main defense was an alleged breach of warranty contained in the application for insurance, in which the defendant alleges it was stated that the insured, Peter Jans, had not made a previous application for insurance. The only statements of the kind are found in Exhibit No. 3 and Exhibit A, and they relate to policy No. 22,621, which is marked No. lm, and which was issued July 25, 1892. The policy sued is marked Exhibit 2, and numbered 1,267. In the application for this policy there is no statement of any kind which was proved to be untrue. So that the defense of breach of warranty in respect of this policy failed.
The other questions in the case were submitted to the jury under the charge of the court, and the jury found for plaintiff. Their verdict is satisfactorily sustained by the evidence, and the judgment entered thereon must be affirmed, with costs.