Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

LAW REPORTS

SUPREME COURT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT A declaratory judgment on a point of insurance law lias been delivered by His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) in the Supreme Court in the originating summons in which the plaintiff was tho Australian Mutual Provident Society, an association carrying on life insurance business in New Zealand, while the defendant was His Majesty's Attorney-General. Mr. C. I'. Skerrett, K.C., with him Mr. It. Kennedy, appeared for the society, while the. Solici-tor-Goneral (Mr. J. AV. Salmond, K.C.). appeared for the Attorney-General. The A.M.P. Society was desirous of issuing a now form of insurance policy, covering the lives of children, and, before doing so, it was anxious to settlethe question as to whether the policy would be in order, having regard to the provisions of Sections 67 and 68 of tho Life Insurance Act. Tho folio-wing question was therefore submitted for answer: Whether a policy of life insurance ou. the lives of children, in a form containing certain alternative provisions, is a valid policy ? The alternative provisions mentioned were: (a) Payment of the amount of the policy to the assured child if it survives the maturity date of the policy; (b) payment of the amount, or the policy to the legal representatives of the assured child, if such child dies after attaining tho age off 21 years, but before the maturity date of the policy; (c) repayment of' the premiums paid in respect of such insurance, together with simple interest thereon to the proponent of sucli insurance if the assured child dies before attaining the age of 21 years. His Honour was of opinion that tho proposed policy was not valid. It did not appear as if any harm could come ! to anyone if the policy were made valid, but that was a matter for tho Legislature to consider. Tho Attorney-General was allowed 10 guineas costs on the summons. DIVORCE PETITION. The case of Annie Charlton v. Frank Charlton has been added to the list of undefended divorce petitions set down for hearing at the Supreme Court on Thursday next.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19160214.2.63

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2694, 14 February 1916, Page 9

Word count
Tapeke kupu
347

LAW REPORTS Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2694, 14 February 1916, Page 9

LAW REPORTS Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2694, 14 February 1916, Page 9

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert