Case Name: Nydes v. Home Guards of America, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1917-02-05
Citations: 256 Pa. 385
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 12
Parties: Nydes v. Home Guards of America, Appellant.
Judges: Before Brown, C. J., Mestrezat, Potter, Stewart and Frazer, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 256
Pages: 385–386

Head Matter:
Nydes v. Home Guards of America, Appellant.
Argued Oct. 9, 1916.
Appeal, No. 12, Oct. T., 1916, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Allegheny Co., Oct. T., 1912, No. 2242, on verdict for plaintiff, in case of Bessie Nydes v. Home Guards of America.
Before Brown, C. J., Mestrezat, Potter, Stewart and Frazer, JJ.
Affirmed.
Assumpsit on a death benefit certificate. Before Hay-maker, J.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Verdict for plaintiff for $3,408.50 and judgment thereon. Defendant appealed.
Errors assigned were in refusing to direct a verdict for defendant and in refusing to enter judgment for defendant n. o. v.
J. A. Langfitt, with him E. W. McIntosh, C. V. Eoke, and Thos. F. Garrahan, for appellant.
Edmund K. Trent, of Prichard and Trent, with him R. P. Marshall and M. R. Marshall, for appellee.
February 5, 1917:

Opinion:
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Stewart,
This and the next preceding case, Nydes v. Royal Neighbors of America, in which the opinion has just been handed down, were tried together in the court below and were argued as one here. Both were actions on certificates of assurance issued by different companies to' Peter Nydes of like date. The defense in each was that the assured, both in his application for membership and in his replies to the questions addressed to him by the medical examiner, had made false representations as to his state of health, his freedom from disease, etc. These questions and answers differed in no material respect in the several cases, and the testimony taken is applicable to both alike. In the opinion filed in the earlier case we have discussed at length the questions that arose, and inasmuch as both present the same governing considerations, the judgment must be the same in each. For the reasons there expressed the judgment in this case is affirmed.