*1 per square. If alleged all was promise, hauled after this $327.97 cometo computa- additional A without interest. only tion shows that $78 this with $1,091.25 interest added equal will the amount of the verdict. In reply to a production that the June was not plaintiff hauled until day after last of June, Robert Owens testified: “That is true, though might possible hauled some slate production in the part first June, way but there is no June — of ascertaining how much.” We think testimony sufficient larger warrant a jury verdict than brought in.
Judgment affirmed. Antonia Pellon et al. v. Connecticut General (Two Cases). Insurance Term,
November 1934. Powers, J., Slack, Moulton, Present: C. Thompson, and
Sherburne, JJ. Opinion January 3, filed *2 George Young B. and J. Ward Carver the defendant. *3 Theriault plaintiff. & Sunt the J. These before, cases havе been see 105 here Sherburne, Atl. 701, again Vt. and upon come here defendant’s ex- ceptions judgment after verdict and plaintiffs. They for the upon policies are actions two life on insurance life of the Paz. part Venerando The defense was fraud on the of the procuring policies. plaintiffs insured the The denied the charge fraud, alleged and and claimed waiver de- any fendant of estopped forfeiture and defendant the was claiming one. vyas in, After the evidence all defendant moved for a directed upon ground fraud, the verdict the further ‘‘ undisputed grounds: That on the appear no evidence facts charge this knowledge any defendant with of the mis- representations in application; M. I. B. card reading pulse ‘High consumptive tendency’ rate and had tendency no give to establish or notice to the had, defendant that Mr. Paz had, or had been told that he any tuberculosis of organ, chronic cough any or or expectoration, lungs throat, disease of the or or positive sputum had or tests, had had had medical advice dur- past ing years, family five or that he physician, had in- for this application at the time health good not was by the defendant II, be no waiver surance, and there could Part such knowledge facts, and no those imputed actual or without knowledge im- was and no such knowledge to its attention came rea- evidence “That on the uncontradicted puted And to it.” any misrepresentations of the inquiry would not disclose sonable tracing uncontradicted evidence of, and that on the complained M. card the source I. B. contained on the the information misrepresenta- does disclose information thereon the motion claim.” The court overruled tions which we now and, every ground thereof; exceptions on each and allowed bound following our former application, appearing in the written and answers signed application, insured, at the time he and that the it, misrepresentations and he and that his tuberculosis, knew con- to the risk and induced the were material law,” as a matter of tract, the fraud court ruled “it was estoppel. only jury the issue of waiver or submitted substantially of fraud are upon the issue The facts shown opinion and need not be set in our former those detailed like facts shown the issue of waiver or again. As the forth substantially shown estoppel different from those appear material, all al- mention facts to be we already may large part appears though repeating be what opinion. in the former signed on the insured
Part II of 7, 1929, and he was examined defendant’s medical October policies were dated October examiner on that date. The office not sent out of home 1929, but were paid by the premium first insured until October The day policies put into 14, 1929, the last could December alleged against charge of fraud insured relied The force. *4 following questions and based is defense application: II in Part of answers you any time had or been told that Have “7. asthma, any (b) organ, tuberculosis of you had cough blood, bronchitis, chronic chronic spitting of pneumonia, palpitation pleurisy, expeсtoration, or heart, lungs, or throat?” any disease of the or “No.” Answer: during you (a)
“8. had medical advice Have ailments, years so, ? If for dura- the last five what ad- approximate names and tion and dates? Give physicians consulted.” Answer: dresses of all “No.” family (b) physician.”
“8. of Answer: Name “None.” good you
“9. Are now health? Answer: “Yes.” physical
The result examination a loss in showed weight pounds past year, three over the cause which wife, systolic was ascribed to the recent death of insurer’s blood pressure pulse of 120 reported 80. rate The examiner respiratory that the murmur every was clear and distinct over part lungs lungs both and that every indi- were free disease, cation of and stated his the risk first class, and acceptance. recommended its inspection
There is an service used most of leading companies insurance which the defendant had found to be re- liable. Before this approved, a report had been procured from company rendering report this service. This applicant stated that very healthy was a man desir- able risk, insurance that it learned of no illness, past or present, might risk, affect the nor heard of applicant any or family his having consumption. It also stated that his general reputation as to good. character and morals was 14, 1929,
On October signed insured an application to The Mutual Insurance of New $10,000 York policy company. in that He was examined on that date Dr. W. B. Harkness, its medical examiner. In there import of similar to those in applica- tion to the quoted, defendant above and similar answers were given by insured. Dr. systolic Harkness found a pressure blood pulse of 110 and a rate reply In question: “Do inquiry thorough physical careful examination show past present indication of disease or functional disturbance of arteries, respiratory organs?” héart, he answered “No” to reply'to'the question: you In each. anything “Do know of physical connection with the cоndition, family history insured’s or past health already record not recorded, which would affect *5 this report of With his “No.” insurability?” answered:
liis reading letter company a sent to the Harkness Dr. examination afternoon, he Paz, this of Mr. “On examination as follows: I him three examined lighter than when appeáred somewhat brought nothing out my ago years and while examination thinking might a help there tubercular definite, I could not pulse systolic high and low His rather developing. condition case.” Mutual Life Insur- suspicious The it rather of made rejected application. Company ance through information to relative re- is a bureau There companies life insurance is' to jected applicants communicated 24, 1929, On to the service. October which subscribe Mutual. reported in code to this bureau rela- Insurance Life rapid consumptive tend- pulse Paz he had to Mr. tive only was Dr. Harkness’ examination ency, basis for which 28, 1929, On the defendant received and letter. October code, an “M. I. B.” called in the record this bureau card information communicated to gave the above. card, which twenty-five by one of clerks the records handled The card duty of office. It was the this clerk to of the home department on mark receipt of the card the file or work sheet minute the alphabеtical insured, and then file card in pertaining to kept department, where such cards were records order mark, not made on the Through error, notation was file file. place. proper Although in its kept and filed card but the conveyed by card did not come to the atten- the information duty officers, it was to whose any of the defendant’s tion of days risks, few before the pass upon until policies issue presumed will be have held that defendant trial, we page contents, 105 Yt. at 168 Atl. knowledge of its to unnecessary accurately this card It determine is Harkness, Dr. as it condition found is obvious described presumed had cannot be mоre in- the defendant was furnished to the from it than Harkness formation Company. At the time the card was re- Insurance Mutual policies had at the home office of been ceived delivery agent insured; but to an their terms sent premium the first not in force because were paid. policies 8, 1929, on November were in The defendant’s possession change its purpose home office for of bene- insured, accepted paid by fieiaries. Premiums of his death. the defendant to the date *6 appli- lay underwriter, approved who this The defendant’s conveyed by that if had had the information cation, testified he day out, 1929, poliсies sent 25, on card October passed the insurance but referred not have would have he would department. Robinson, Dr. defendant’s medi- it to the medical plaintiffs, a for director, called and examined as witness cal application insurance, on direct that had the this testified II includes the asked of the insured Part examiner, examination, along the medical medical come lay underwriter, him from the and in addition to the in- out in had formation set there been indi- company cation that Mr. Paz found some-other had.been approximately time been have sus- consumptive pected tendency, approved оf a he would have pending investigation suspicion, have investi- would before, gated ; but, policies if the had been sent out the informa- received, done.nothing tion he would have and would not investigated. Later, upon cross-examination, he testified if inspection report that he had also had the above to, referred nothing which he found unfavorable, he ap- would have proved risk, policies and, if the issued, would have allowed the insurance to stand as issued. -He further testified that, rapid a although pulse may rate something to do with tuberculosis, why and that is one reason it is taken, he would significance have attached no case, to it report as the pulse their medical examiner showed a rate of only 80, and many things may there so that rapid cause a pulse, such as nervousness excitement. He also testified that systolic a low pressure has no blood relation in itself to tubercular trouble, may although it exist with things; other high that a pulse rate systolic reported by and low Dr. Harlmess have signifi- no cance under the circumstances. He testified further judgment is a selection risks matter of within certain limits, department that one approve medical would a man where an- other not. Montpelier, Bisson of
Dr. called plaintiffs, testified that pulse usuаlly goes rate high a Upon tuberculosis. cross- that, testified examination he 7, October an examination pulse a showed rate of and a week later an examination very thorough a examina- pulse and after showed rate organs thorough physical good and a respiratory of all the tion man was in first- showing everything about the examination thought pulse rate, he would not have except class condition necessary thought not have it he had tuberculosis and would if he learned further; but redirect testified that examine competent practitioner an examination indicated to practitioner patiеnt developing a tubercular such that the condition, proceeded further. would have ‘‘ by plaintiffs, pulse testified Harkness, called rate significance; in in an carries considerable examination first condition very high, it is and that would be—the fact condition,” and brought to would be a tubercular his attention up complete with a more examination. Of he “would follow stethoscope high temperature, chest find- that carries on course many irregulari- weight, and all ings digestion, loss *7 finally go condition, and symptoms and with ties X-ray.” He went over him with the testing, with sputum get any symptoms with stethoscope didn’t chest consistent and had man to have finding. testified that he known a a T. B. He good tuberculosis, and that a high as as 110 not have pulse rate produced by many might produce it, that it is sometimes causes - excitement; indicate that or that his letter did not nervousness couldn’t find risk, not insurable but while he Paz was an condition; a anything definite, suspicious of tubercular he things, pulse, suspicion based three low his systolic a weight. That the normal for man and systolic, loss anything 135, and age is he would consider below then of Paz’s He of bad health. didn’t remember as an indication 120-125 record, weight, reply Paz’s loss in a no had pounds a three or within if had been loss of four there through a man had been the serious illness months, a few where death, wife, resulting surprising, in her would that be his pounds three or four didn’t consider loss that he answered weight. foregoing circumstances did the defendant Under diligence, which, pursued reasonable information discovery according facts, the true to the a have led knowledge per opinion? The stated our rule estoppel relied on to establish waiver acts are whose son necessary person ordi- facts enable of essential be must
137 nary prudence judgment understandingly, to act knowledge distinguished from 32 must be as mere inference. 1322; 19, C. J. v. 111 Fed. Co., Cable U. Ins. 49 C. A. S. C. Life 216; Casualty King, & Ins. v. 137 Tenn. 195 Co. S. W. Life Ky. 585; Lauer, Germania Ins. Co. Y. v. N. W. S. Dr. Harkness’ letter and examination of the insured did not show that he had tuberculosis or that he was an insurable They merely risk. suspicion showed a that a tubercular condi- tion might developing. policies The had issued, al- though not in force. As defendant’s medical director testified, the selection of judgment risks is matter of within certain plaintiffs’ limits. He was witness and was held not to be Under the hostile. circumstances the defendant would have issued, allowed the insurance to stand knowing'that as in- suspected by sured was having one doctor of a tubercular con- developing, dition in view of the other favorable information it available; had but it is manifest that it would not accepted premiums if it had known actual condition of in- sured and that his statements were false.
Until defendant saw the death certificate and learned attending physician who the was and called him, it had no knowledge actual that the insured had tuberculosis, had or that family had had physician, or had consulted doctors within years insurance, five before his or had spit blood, or had been told that he tuberculosis. From then on the proof unraveled, point a starting had been found. Had the gone directly to Dr. Harkness, it would not have falsity learned of representations. Furthermore, these nearly acquaintances all of the produced and relatives at the *8 ability trial to testified insured to do hard manual appearance labor and to his apparent good up health to a days few before his diligence death. Reasonable did not re- quire going back of Dr. Harkness’ examination and letter to make a canvass of physicians in large populous so territory or sputum. to test insured’s plaintiffs hold
We have not shown that the defend- which, pursued ant had information diligence, reasonable discovery falsity would have led to a of the true facts and of the representations. of insured’s
138 to our have adhered arriving at our conclusion In is the of last resort by сase a. court in a decision practice the sub throughout all points presented case on of that law necessarily question then therein, and no proceedings sequent by in the the court reconsidered will be and decided involved legal Bar not different in effect. of facts on state same case 227, Atl. 230, 94 110 Co., clay v. Morse Wetmore & Granite Vt. in stringent may practice be and cases cited. However practice, done, is but has been it still refusing to reconsider what If be we should jurisdiction, that makes rule. not want of power to had made a mistake we that we come satisfied Remington a matter. v. Central reopen and reconsider Pacific 959, 963, Sup. 100, 49 L. ed. 25 Ct. Co., 198 U. S. Railroad shows substantial comparison A with our last trial from those of the first in the facts difference which are stated our former trial. Certain conclusions although the evidence at the first opinion, sustained page trial. not borne the evidence at last On out 701, 707, “M. I. Vt., 168 Atl. we state that the B.” 105 clearly representations that the “card indicates the insured complete true, and, in view of the nature of the were not upon inquiry.” put it to defendant contract, was sufficient Vt., 701, 707, 168 Atl. ‘M. I. Again page 523 of ‘‘The B.’ the defendant the written con card informed representations.” At the first trial false these conсlu tained testimony of Dr. sions borne out Robinson. The of insured the Mutual Insurance report answers therein and the and letter of Dr. Hark with his did testify ness were not then evidence. Robinson not so at the last trial and there was no evidence to that effect. complain inadequate briefing part on the
The may prop- It is that defendant’s brief true the defendant. particularly arrangement, erly respects, some but criticised adequate it cover the matters discussed us. we think that is motion'should have been stated defendant’s reasons For the unnecessary the cases makes disposition This granted. exceptions. the other discuss judgment n to re- reversed,
Judgment in each case. costs its cover
139 Reargument.* On for Motion leave, duly obtained, for the J. On counsel Sherburne, reargument eases, filed a in these motion entry judgment pending which the of has been withheld. understanding quote of motion first For better the we opinion comparison “A our our as follows: in at shows a substantial facts the last difference the trial from those of the first trial. conclusions which are Certain although by stated our former opinion, sustained the evidence by first at not borne out the evidence the last page Vt., 707, trial. On 521 of 105 168 Atl. we that state ‘M. I. B.’ clearly representations ‘card of indicates complete true, the insured not and in view of the contract, nature put it was sufficient to the defendant upon inquiry.’ Again page 105 Vt., 168 Atl. 707, ‘the “M. B.” I. card informed the representations.’ written contained false At trial testimony first these conclusions were borne out of Dr. Robinson. The of insured to the Mutual Life Insurance with his answers therein and re- port and letter of Darkness were not then in evidence. Dr. did testify Robinson not so at the trial last and there nowas evidence to that effect.” say that, although
Plaintiffs avowing our adherence to the case, law of the we have reached our decision a differentiation respects the evidence at the two trials in changing not legal “M. effect I. B.” card as determined at the former trial, and have thus amounting reached result complete to a departure from the They law of the particularly case. refer testimony Dr. Robinson as to what he would or would not have done had he known the card and background, its opinion. Overlooking recited contrary the claim to the complete paragraph last on page 19 of brief, defendant’s they say that ‘‘Such differentiation nor argued claimed hearing, the defendant at the nor itwas to be anticipated plaintiffs.” They forth set grounds fifteen subordinate heading. the motion under this First, they say not recited evidence of Dr. any' or of Robinson other witness change legal will effect *Opinion reargument May 7, on motion for filed *10 background card or the of the or informative office indicative the fifth subordinate fourth, and second, third, In the the card. facts that the the they say that have overlooked we grounds, any card cannot be informative effect indicative trial, and at the other trial than it was at this other or different in- clearly that the first trial indicated if card at the that complete and and in- true representations were not sured’s application written contained that formed the formerly held, it indicated the same representations, as wе false trial, at this unaffected thing gave the same information may say any he would agent or of the defendant what officer it; if or not have done he had known about we would opinion card in that “the overlooked what we said clearly representations of the insured were indicates that card informed the complete true, that the defend- representa- ant the written contained false ’’ tion, is none the less true now that the basis of the card which appears; basis, greater degree that such than the card itself, has the same indication and furnishes the same informa- ; nothing, testimony nothing, tion that there is and can be in thе of Dr. do, Robinson as to what he would or would not that can affect the indicative or informative force of the card or of what lay it; testimony back of and that while Robinson’s at the former trial was held to be of a character that “leaves no room putting doubt” as to on inquiry, the defendant his testi- mony here to what he would or would done, not have if even different, could not as a matter of law make that force different legal effect; say appears in its the decision to rest supposed material testimony some difference Dr. Robinson as to what he would or would not have if done he had had information which bаsed, the card was but that we have overlooked the fact that what Dr. Robinson would done, subject or proper would not have while to be proved, was not determinative of the knowledge im- testimony defendant, here, and that his if putable to the differ- testimony trial, at the first in this regard, from his ent could card, change legal in the effect of not effect and its back- say they further we have overlooked the fact ground; and says or not have he would would that whatever Dr..Robinson factors are what would constitute rea- done, the determinative inquiry facts as to insured’s health would and what sonable diligence prosecuting inquiry, been disclosed its reasonable yet questions formerly jury, both of which held were for the hold, upon greater significance now than card evidence of alone, jury. that such are not for the agree
We that the indicative and informa- card, standing any “M. I. alone, tive effect B.” cannot be other at trial, or different than it was at trial the former and- that it agent cannot be affected what officer may say the defendant he would or not have done had known about it. But at trial, the evidence the second which produced was not the first the basis disclosed “consumptive tendency” card, statement deprives given the card indicаtive force in the former that it informed the defendant that the written con- *11 representations, tained false as a suspicion might that “there be a developing” tubercular condition support does not the state- “consumptive tendency.” ment agree irrespective We also says Dr. what Robinson he done, would or would not have the determinative factors are what would constitute reasonable inquiry and facts what as to health insured’s would have been disclosed diligence prosecuting in reasonable inquiry. its inquiry required a investigation
That
reasonable
an
as to
the facts
in
information
the “M. I. B.” card
may
was based
If such
investigation
be admitted.
an
had been
following facts,
repeat
made the
clarity,
which we
would
appeared
from
produced
evidence that
not
was
at the
trial.
14, 1929,
On October
signed
application
insured
an
to the
Mutual Life Insurance
of New York for a $10,000
policy
company.
in
He was examined on that date
Harkness,
Dr. W. R.
its medical
examiner.
In this
import
there
of similar
were
applica-
those
quoted
tion to the defendant
opinion,
and similar answers
'
given by
systolic
were
insured. Dr. Harkness found a
blood
pressure
pulse
of 110
a
rate of
In reply
110.
ques-
“Do
inquiry
thorough
tion:
physical
careful
examination
past
show
indication of
or present disease or functional
heart,
disturbance of the
arteries,
respiratory organs?” he
reply
answered: “No” to each.
question:
In
to the
you
“Do
anything
know of
in connection with
physical
the insured’s
already re-
not
family history
past
health record
condition,
insurability!”
answered:
his
affect
corded, which would
hp
sent
Dr. Harkness
report
his
of this examination
“No.”
"With
examination
reading
as follows: “On
company
to the
letter
lighter than
afternoon,
appeared
somewhat
of Mr. Paz this
my
years ago and
examination
him three
while
when I examined
there
help thinking
nothing definite, I could not
brought out
high
His
developing.
rather
might
сondition
tubercular
’ At
suspicious
systolic made it rather of
ease.’
pulse and low
indicate
did not
testified that
letter
the trial
Harkness
not
insurable risk.
that Paz was
an
far
plaintiffs.
contradicted
So
These facts are not
trial,
produced at the second
appears
as it
from the evidence
investigation
only
facts that a reasonable
are the
produced.
certainty
before,
no
there was
When
case
here
a rea
produced
what facts would have been
there
that,
inquiry by
from the
defendant,
sonable
we held
facts
from
produced
which were
trial and
other circum
might
in evidence,
jury
stances shown
find thаt the defend
estopped
asserting
ant
But all the facts
a forfeiture.
inquiry
pro
circumstances which
reasonable
would have
and, as
brought
duced
the facts
out
the second
charge
facts
disputed,
such
whether
knowledge
representations
false
defendant .with
Cummings
is for
court.
insured
the written
Co.,
351, 362,
148 Atl.
v.
General
Ins.
Vt.
Connecticut
ground plaintiffs say that we have
sixth subordinate
In the
*12
that the
in Dr. Robinson’s testi-
the facts
difference
overlooked
legal
change
to the
mony
not
the
effect
the evidence as
did
card;
“M. B.”
that at the former trial
testi-
the
I.
he
force of
conveyed by
card,
had the
he
if he had
information
the
fied that
approved
application;
the
that at
trial
not have
this
he
would
thing, except
ap-
that
would not
to the same
he
have
téstified
investigation
investigated;
and
pending
would have
proved
the fact that
the
had been
and that nevertheless
department
underwriting
policies
approved
the
these
by.
de-
before the card
received
the
had
sent out
the
this trial.
in the former trial
same
appeared
fendant
per-
trial Dr. Robinson was
however,
at this
appears,
It
only
testify
upon
done
to
as what he would have
mitted
n
card,
back of
what the
of the information
basis
had had
said,
itself
he also testified that
he
card
and that
which
into
inspection
report,
service
was hot introduced
the evi-
approved
risk.
the former
have
dence
ground,
As to the
subordinate
we did not treat
seventh
policies
that if
the.evidence of Dr. Robinson
been sent
nothing
out, he would have done
and would not have investi
controlling
gated, as alone
of what
determinative
the de
should
done. Cases
fendant
have
have to be decided
plaintiff’s witness,
evidence.
Robinson
and so far as
testimony
expressly
impliedly
his
was neither
nor
contradicted
it. Wellman,
Wales,
bound
v.
Admr.
98 Vt.
440,
437,
The eighth,
tenth, eleventh, and thirteenth subordinate
grounds merely present
similar
foregoing
to the
are answered
what
said.
In the ninth subordinate
ground plaintiffs say that although avowing our
adherence
the law of
case,
remanding
nevertheless after
the case for
jury
determination
of what was a
inquiry
reasonable
upon the basis
“M. I.
alone,
of the
B.” card
we have now held
information,
card,
that the
lying
additional
together
back of the
competent
testimony
significance
medical
of that in
formation,
is not
question
sufficient to make the
of reasonable
inquiry
jury.
for the
nothing
This amounts -to
more than the
presentation of
already
mаtters
received our careful
Goodwin,
consideration and have been decided.
Admx. v. Gas
et al.,
ton
Vt. 357,
In ground plaintiffs say the twelfth subordinate jury there was still a testimony if the of de- ’s such fendant underwriters was as to raise some doubt. It was not such. ground plaintiffs say
In the fourteenth subordinate testimony is sufficient Dr. Robinson’s to warrant an inference getting the defendant was more intent on premiums thereby putting insurance in than in force making an inquiry. We do not think so. *13 ground plaintiffs say that we
In the fifteenth subordinate favorably plaintiffs in have not viewed the evidence most to the arriving conclusion, ground main our the sixth they they point motion out several instances where claim we disregardеd whereby they have the rule are entitled to have the light evidence viewed in most favorable to them. We have carefully all read the evidence and have mentioned in the quotations fair testimony, from the medical and in so doing given plaintiffs all that are entitled under quoted extensively, rule. could We more but have say had to length. condense what we had to within a reasonable Although judgment, it is much a matter of we are that satisfied accurately we have covered the matters and in sufficient detail. nothing suggested. We overlooked that has been In their ground plaintiffs say second main of the motion given effect, we have no on the of what was reason inquiry, able knowledge which, with on the issue of forfei ture, the defendant was law chargeable, namely, knowledge of its own medical examiner, is, that none of the answers re on in lied the application, purporting to be the in answers sured, such, were in fact and that inquired the insured was not of, and answer, made no questions as to tuberculosis. The which defendant’s medical insured, examiner asked answers, his substantially the same as at given the former and as page 513 of Vt., 168 Atl. Although because of insured’s fraud the questions are bound appearing in application, answers agree the de chargeable fendant was knowledge of its medical ex aminer, knowledge and that this would have become a factor in investigation required. case an had been We did not overlook plaintiffs. this as claimed But assuming, contrary to holding, our that the defendant had information, the basis for required investigation, an improbable that, it is had the required medical examiner seek out the insured and questions application, the identical in the ask he would have gotten already different answers those set down or got substantially than Harkness when he asked similar Company. Mutual for the Life Insurance The in tuberculosis, that he had concealment of knew sured large trying up with a amount of life in fact to load surance. *14 ground plaintiffs say
In their third main motion particular fact we overlooked the that whatever answers in the false, lying the fraud of insured the root the forfeiture rests the ultimate fact that he had tubercu- losis and concealed examination. A more careful read- ing of the will not bear this remaining out. The matters ground disposed mentioned under this what we have already said, except that pass we cannot over without comment misconception opinion by plaintiffs’ attorneys, when appear state that we adopted to have reasoning certain holding in effect that even the defendant had had in its file reports sputum of insured’s Laboratory, tests from the State card, instead the “M. I. B.” yet it would as a rulable matter law that there was no 'waiver. In the ground fourth plaintiffs of the motion mention availability of the records sputum of insured’s All tests. that need be said why this is to ask, the defendant should up looked suspected these or have existence, their when it had been told that the insured had not been sick to doctor. ground
In their fifth speak imputed knowledge. There was none respects here claimed. remaining The ground sufficiently of the motion is covered
by what already pointed we have out. Motion reargumeni entry denied. Let go down. full Co-operative Fumagalli.
Union Store v. Battista Term,
November 1934. J., Powers,
Present: Slack, Moulton, Thompson, C.
Sherburne, JJ. Opinion January 5, filed