Whiting v. Fidelity Mutual Life Ass'n of Philadelphia
Opinion of the Court
This was an action brought by the holder of two policies in the defendant company for equitable relief. It was an individual action. Upon the trial at Special Term the complaint was dismissed. Upon appeal to this court the judgment was reversed and a new trial ordered. (137 App. Div. 758.) Instead of taking the new trial the defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals and gave a stipulation for judgment absolute. The
It was the duty of the Special Term to follow the directions of the Court of Appeals and to enter judgment absolute for the plaintiff. The controversy is over the form of the judgment to which the plaintiff was entitled and the main question is whether under the complaint the plaintiff was entitled to an interlocutory judgment for an accounting “ concerning all of its affairs.” The plaintiff did in Ms prayer for relief demand an accounting, but that prayer was as follows: “ To require the defendant to make an accounting to the end that it may be determined whether or not the assessments of the defendant under the terms of paragraph 10th of said ‘Conditions’ endorsed on the back of said policies, are reasonable, equitable and just.”
It seems to us clear that the accountmg required was solely for the purpose of ascertaming whether the assessments, which it was alleged had been improperly laid, were justified. By the judgment as originally entered every relief demanded in the complaint was granted, and it was especially adjudged that the defendant be enjoined from levying and collecting any and all premiums and assessments, beyond the annual sum of $109.55 on policy numbered 45322, which the complamt alleged was the yearly premium that plamtiff was entitled to a continuance of durMg the whole period of life, and the annual sum of $21.91 on policy numbered 45323, m regard to which he made the same allegation.
As. the judgment specifically provided that the defendant was not entitled to increase the annual premium, and as it was enjomed from canceling' the policies and from declaring them null and void unless the plamtiff should pay'certain
We think, therefore, that the judgment appealed from should be vacated and judgment should be entered in the form as originally signed, with the exception that the statement that it was made on the motion of the attorney for the plaintiff should be stricken out, as that form of judgment was not proposed by the attorney for the plaintiff but by the attorneys for the defendant, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to the appellant.
Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Scott and Dowling, JJ., concurred.
Judgment vacated and judgment ordered as directed in opinion, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to appellant. Order to be settled on notice.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.