case without rule in New York

1898In that case, as in this, the deceased was able to read and write; but it was held that that fact did not take the case without the rule laid down in O’Brien v. Society, 117 N. Y. 310 , 22 N. E. 954 , that: “Where the Insured gives true answers to the questions put to him as the basis of insurance, and an authorized agent of the insurance company inserts in the application false answers, the company, and not the insured, is responsible for their falsity, and their falsity is no defense to an action upon the policy.” In the Peters Case, Mr. Justice Bartlett said: “In those cases, it is true, th

1898In that case, as in this, the deceased was able to read and write; but it was held that that fact did not take the case without the rule laid down in O’Brien v. Society, 117 N. Y. 310 , 22 N. E. 954 , that: “Where the Insured gives true answers to the questions put to him as the basis of insurance, and an authorized agent of the insurance company inserts in the application false answers, the company, and not the insured, is responsible for their falsity, and their falsity is no defense to an action upon the policy.” In the Peters Case, Mr. Justice Bartlett said: “In those cases, it is true, th

1912Co., 119 id. 540; Sonnentheil v. Moerlein Brewing Co., 172 U. S. 401 .) But direct interest, such as would have disqualified the witness at common law, is not necessary to take the case without the exception.

1898Co. ( 10 App. Div. 533 ; affirmed by the Court of Appeals, 154 N. Y. 758 , on the opinion of this court)." In that case as in this the deceased was able to read and write ; but it was held that that fact did not take the case without the rule laid down in O' Brien v. Home Benefit Society ( 117 N. Y. 310 ), that “where the insured gives .true answers to the questions put to him as the basis of insurance, and an authorized agent of the insurance company inserts in the application false answers, the company and not the insured is responsible for their falsity, and that their falsity is no defense

1898N. C. 435 ; Doyle v. Lord, 64 N. Y. 432 ; Myers v. Gemmel, 10 Barb. 537 ; Palmer v. Wetmore, 2 Sandf. 316 ; Keats v. Hugo, 115 Mass. 204 .) Eor does the fact that the windows are in a party wall take this case without the rule.

1898N. C. 435 ; Doyle v. Lord, 64 N. Y. 432 ; Myers v. Gemmel, 10 Barb. 537 ; Palmer v. Wetmore, 2 Sandf. 316 ; Keats v. Hugo, 115 Mass. 204 .) Eor does the fact that the windows are in a party wall take this case without the rule.

1898Co. ( 10 App. Div. 533 ; affirmed by the Court of Appeals, 154 N. Y. 758 , on the opinion of this court)." In that case as in this the deceased was able to read and write ; but it was held that that fact did not take the case without the rule laid down in O' Brien v. Home Benefit Society ( 117 N. Y. 310 ), that “where the insured gives .true answers to the questions put to him as the basis of insurance, and an authorized agent of the insurance company inserts in the application false answers, the company and not the insured is responsible for their falsity, and that their falsity is no defense

1898N. C. 435 ; Doyle v. Lord, 64 N. Y. 432 ; Myers v. Gemmel, 10 Barb. 537 ; Palmer v. Wetmore, 2 Sandf. 316 ; Keats v. Hugo, 115 Mass. 204 .) Eor does the fact that the windows are in a party wall take this case without the rule.

1898N. C. 435 ; Doyle v. Lord, 64 N. Y. 432 ; Myers v. Gemmel, 10 Barb. 537 ; Palmer v. Wetmore, 2 Sandf. 316 ; Keats v. Hugo, 115 Mass. 204 .) Eor does the fact that the windows are in a party wall take this case without the rule.

1895Dig. 23 ; Jackson v. Robins, 16 Johns. 538 ; Helmer v. Shoemaker, 22 Wend. 137 ), the adjudication is, nevertheless, inapplicable to the present case, for here we have every element of a limitation repugnant to a devise in fee, with none of the peculiar characteristics which the courts have sometimes found to bring a case without the rule declaring the subsequent limitation void.