| New York Court of Common Pleas | Jun 4, 1894
In an action on a policy of insurance in the Workingman’s Co-operative Association, for “sick benefits,” the plaintiff had judgment, to reverse which the defendant urges the present appeal. He challenges the judgment upon three grounds:
Second. That no sufficient proof of plaintiff’s claim was presented to the association. We think otherwise. At all events, the defect, if any, was waived by the omission of a seasonable and specific objection.
Third. That the plaintiff defaulted in proof of compliance with the condition of the policy. But this, too, was a defense which the appellant should have alleged and established. Richmond v. Insurance Co., 79 N.Y. 230" court="NY" date_filed="1879-12-16" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/richmond-v--niagara-fire-ins-co-3620856?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3620856">79 N. Y. 230; Insurance Co. v. Ewing, 92 U.S. 377" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1876-04-10" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/piedmont-etc-life-ins-co-v-ewing-etc-89284?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="89284">92 U. S. 377. Another answer to the appeal is that the motion to dismiss the complaint omitted to specify the particulars of nonperformance of conditions. Webb v. Odell, 49 N.Y. 583" court="NY" date_filed="1872-06-11" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/webb-v--odell-3606448?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3606448">49 N. Y. 583.
The judgment consists with the justice of the case, and is not invalidated by any legal error. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.