95 N.J.L. 163 | N.J. | 1920
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Without calling any witnesses, or submitting any testimony in support of ber claim, and depending only upon the admissions of the pleadings, the plaintiff submitted her case. The defendant by her witnesses then proved the
The defendant afterwards paid Finnie’s note when it matured, and Finnie executed an assignment of the policy to defendant. Finnie thereafter died and. the defendant collected the amount clue on the- policy, to recover which this suit is brought.
The plaintiff now insists that the assignment of the policy was executed only as collateral seeurily for the payment of the note. There is nothing to evidence that contention, while the entire volume of the testimony is to the contrary.
The defendant after the assignment to her paid all the premiums on the policy, as thej matured, until Finnie’s death, about two years and nine months after the assignment, and the latter in the interim made no claim upon the defendant for the policy, and made no attempt to pay or to tender to her the amount due to her for her advancements.
This factual status presented m> question for the jury to consider, since the material facts were all conceded. Whatever ciaini the plaintiff might be able to maintain in equity
Our examination of the contested' procedural errors discussed by counsel leads us to conclude that they were properly disposed of by the learned trial court, and that the substantial rights of the plaintiff, under the twenty-seventh section of the New Practice act, upon an examination of the whole case, cannot be said to' have been injuriously affected by such disposition.
The judgment therefore will be affirmed.