Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., Appellant, v. Julius HALPERN, et al., Trustees, Appellees, 1932 — 61 F.2d 1037 · caselaw · US
General
NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., Appellant, v. Julius HALPERN, et al., Trustees, Appellees
61 F.2d 1037·United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·1932
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., Appellant, v. Julius HALPERN, et al., Trustees, Appellees.
No. 4751.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Sept. 30, 1932.
See, also, 47 F.(2d) 935.
Wm. n. Eckert, of Pittsburgh, Pa., Louis H. Cooke, of New York City, and Smith, Buehanan, Scott & Gordon, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.
Charles H. Sachs, Louis Caplan, and Sachs & Caplan, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellees.
Before WOOLLEY, DAYIS, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
The appellant filed its bill in equity in the court below praying for the cancellation and rescission of two policies of life insurance issued by it in favor of the appellees, Julius Halpern, the insured, and Lillian Hal-pern and Fidelity Tr-ust Company, as trustees under a certain trust agreement, upon the ground that the said Julius Halpern, in Ijiis application, had made certain false and fraudulent answer's to questions propounded to him by the appellant’s medical examiner relating to Hal pern’s health and to his examination by physicians. We have carefully examined the testimony and the briefs of counsel, and the opinion and decree of the learned District Judge [57 F.(2d) 200].
The findings of fact are fully supported by the evidence produced in the court below, and, since we find no error in the conclusions of law, the decree dismissing the bill of complaint is affirmed, with costs.