Majority
p. 689S. Albert Lowenstein, Appellant, v. Lulu Koch, Respondent. (Argued February 28, 1916; decided March 14, 1916.)
Headnote
Lowenstein v. Koch, 165 App. Div. 760 , affirmed.Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered February 5,. 1915, which reversed an order of Special Term granting a motion by plaintiff for judgment in his
p. 690
favor upon the pleadings. The complaint sets forth in substance that plaintiff duly recovered a judgment against one Friedman in the sum of $1,523.63, which was duly entered and docketed in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on May 24, 1912; that thereafter execution in due form was issued to the sheriff of the proper county and was returned by him unsatisfied; that there is now due to plaintiff on said judgment the sum of $1,523.63, with interest; that supplementary proceedings were duly commenced against said Friedman, which are still pending" and have not been terminated; that about August 8, 1899, said Friedman insured his life in the New York Life Insurance Company in the sum of $5,000 by policy No. 973,090 in favor of his executors, administrar tors or assigns, or to such beneficiary as said Friedman might designate; that said policy contained a clause permitting said Friedman to change his beneficiary at will; that on or about April 9, 1900, said Friedman designated his sister, the defendant herein, as such beneficiary; that said Friedman died on February 15, 1914, without having ever assigned said policy and that on said date said policy was in full force and effect; that by reason of the foregoing plaintiff acquired and now has a lien on said policy and the moneys payable thereunder. The defendant demurred to the complaint on the ground “ that it appears on the face thereof that the same does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.”
The following question was certified: “Does the complaint herein state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action % ”
Paul Armitage and S. A. Lowenstein for appellant.
Alfred L. Rose and Norman P. Schloss for respondent.
Order affirmed, with costs, and question certified answered in the negative; no opinion.
Concur: Willard Bartlett, Oh. J., Hiscock, Collin, Cuddeback, Hogan, Seabury and Pound, JJ.
Cases cited
- Lowenstein v. Koch 165 App. Div. 760 p. 689