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.
Anna M. McClure, Executrix, etc., Respondent, v. The Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, Appellant, 1873 — 55 N.Y. 651 · caselaw · US
Civil Procedure · MBE-tested
Anna M. McClure, Executrix, etc., Respondent, v. The Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, Appellant
55 N.Y. 651·New York Court of Appeals·1873·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
Anna M. McClure, Executrix, etc., Respondent, v. The Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, Appellant.
(Argued November 24, 1873;
decided December 9, 1873.)
This was an action upon a policy of life insurance, containing the usual clause forfeiting it in case the assured died by his own hand. The assured committed suicide. It appeared upon the trial that he was, up to a short time prior to his. death, a genial, social, apparently happy man; that there was an entire change in these respects; that he became taciturn, absent-minded, moody and unhappy, complaining of severe neuralgiac pain in his head, and was restless and haggard in appearance; that, to those calling to see him upon business, he replied that they must call another time, as he could not sufficiently collect his thoughts. But -the proof showed, also, that he was greatly embarrassed, financially, and had appropriated moneys intrusted to him for investment, ” and received by him as treasurer of a plank-road company; and had committed forgeries, in one of which he had been detected, and that he could no longer prevent the discovery of others. Held, that plaintiff was properly nonsuited, as the evidence tended rather to show the knowledge of the deceased of his deplorable condition, the result of his dishonesty, than to prove insanity.
Julian T. Damies and- Rufus W. Peckham for the' appellant.
S. 0. Shepa/rd for the respondent.
[MAJORITY — Grover, J.,]
Grover, J.,
reads for reversal of order granting a new trial; also for overruling exception, and for judgment in favor of defendant on nonsuit.
All concur.
Ordered accordingly.