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. Anna DYLLER, Appellee, 1931 — 45 F.2d 1016 · caselaw · US
General
NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., Appellant, v. Anna DYLLER, Appellee
45 F.2d 1016·United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·1931
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
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. Anna DYLLER, Appellee.
No. 4388.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Jan. 10, 1931.
Wall, Haight, Carey & Hartpenee, of Jersey City, N. J. (Wm. H. Carey, of Jersey City, N. J., of counsel), for appellant.
Lichtenstein, Schwartz & Fiiedenberg, of Hoboken, N. J. (John H. Kelley, of Hobo-ken, N. J., of counsel), for appellee.
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.]
BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.
In this case the insurance company conceded its liability for the death of the deceased, but denied liability for double indemnity in case death resulted from accident. The issue before the jury narrowed to the question whether the deceased committed suicide by driving his automobile over a precipice, and the question on this appeal is whether the trial court erred in refusing to give binding instructions to the jury to find for the company. No principle of law is involved, and the case turns on its own particular proofs. After a careful study of sueh proofs by each Judge singly and a full discussion at conference, the court is of opinion the proofs were sueh that the issue involved had to be submitted to the jury.
Accordingly, the judgment below is affirmed.