Skip to main content
· 5/28/1896

McHale v. McDonnell

Citations

  • 175 Pa. 632
  • 38 W.N.C. 345
  • 34 A. 966
  • 1896 Pa. LEXIS 1299

Syllabus

<p>Practice, G. P__Special verdict — Judgment.</p> <p>A,judgment cannot be entered upon a special verdict made up of questions propounded to and answered by the jury, if the answers to some of the questions are irreconcilable with answers to others; but the verdict must be construed upon the questions and the answers; and its construction cannot be affected by what was said by the trial judge in explanation of one of the questions.</p> <p>Insurance — Life insurance — Assignment of policy — Erasure—Evidence.</p> <p>An assignment of a policy of life insurance showed upon its face these words over which a pen line had been drawn: “All except $500 of the amount of this policy to be returned to my executors or administrators when the said policy becomes a claim.” There also appeared annexed to the policy a second assignment, dated more than a year after the first, in which these words were interlined “ as his interest may appear.” The insurance company paid the money into court, and a feigned issue was framed to determine the ownership of the money, in which the assignee was plaintiff, and the administratrix of the assured was defendant. The only person, except the assignee of the policy, who was present at the assignment and living at the time of the trial, testified that the erasure was made before the assignment was executed, and that it was made for the purpose of giving the plaintiff, who was the assignee of the policy, an absolute ownership in the policy. The defendant claimed that the policy had been assigned to secure a debt which was only one third of the amount of the sum named in the policy. Held, (1) that the burden of showing that the erasure was made before the execution of the assignment was upon the plaintiff; (2) that the second assignment was not in accord with the plaintiff’s contention respecting the time of the erasure, nor absolutely inconsistent with the presence of the limitation clause in the first assignment when the second was made; (3) that if

Judges: Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Sterrett, Williams

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.