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.
General
Helen M. Howell, Respondent, v. The John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company of Boston, Appellant
186 N.Y. 556·New York Court of Appeals·1906·NY
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
Helen M. Howell, Respondent, v. The John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company of Boston, Appellant.
Howell v. Hancock Mut. L. Ins. Co., 107 App. Div. 200, affirmed.
(Argued October 10, 1906;
decided October 26, 1906.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered August 21, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover on a policy of life insurance.
William De Graff for appellant.
Flbridge L. Adams for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs, on the ground that no sufficient exception was taken to the submission to the jury of the question as to whether the time in which to pay. the premium had been extended ; no opinion.
Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Vann and Chase, JJ. Absent: Gray, J. Not sitting: Hiscook, J.