New York Supreme Court, 1894

Sulz v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Ass'n

New York Supreme Court · Decided December 10, 1894 · Brown, Dykman

31 N.Y.S. 1133; 90 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 139; 64 N.Y. St. Rep. 881 (New York Supplement)

Counsel

Raphael J. Moses and T. A. Burnham, for appellant., Ernest P. Brook (Charles J. Patterson, of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion of the Court

DYKMAN, J.

Upon the questions of law involved, the judgment and order should be affirmed upon the opinion of the trial judge upon the motion for a new trial. 28 N. Y. Supp. 263. Upon the questions of fact, there is no cause for interference. The questions were all submitted to the jury by a charge of which the defendant has no reason to complain, and the jury has deduced inferences favorable to the plaintiff from all the facts and circumstances of the case. It was the peculiar province of the jury to draw such inferences, and we cannot say they are unnatural or erroneous. The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.

Dissenting Opinion

BROWN, J.

I dissent upon the ground that, upon the facts, an action cannot be maintained on the policy in this state.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.