§
In re Appeal of Adler

4 Cited authorities

  1. Central Bank of Washington v. Hume

    128 U.S. 195 (1888)   Cited 132 times
    In Central Nat. Bank of Washington v. Hume, 128 U.S. 195, 9 S.Ct. 41, 32 L.Ed 370, the Supreme Court, although there not particularly concerned with New York law, recognized the payment of premiums as fixing the date of the transfer.

  2. Slocum v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.

    139 N.E. 816 (Mass. 1923)   Cited 57 times
    Recognizing policy in insurance context

  3. Wagner v. Thierot

    118 Misc. 511 (N.Y. Misc. 1922)   Cited 3 times

    April, 1922. Gustav Lange, Jr., for plaintiff. Holm, Whitlock Scarff ( Victor E. Whitlock and Herbert D. Chabot, of counsel), for defendants. O'MALLEY, J. It appears from the complaint that the defendant's testator had two policies of life insurance upon which he had borrowed certain sums during his lifetime. This indebtedness with accrued interest was deducted from the face of the policies by the companies and the balance paid to the plaintiff, testator's wife, who was named as beneficiary in each

  4. Eltonhead v. Travelers Insurance Co.

    177 App. Div. 170 (N.Y. App. Div. 1917)   Cited 1 times

    March 9, 1917. William J. Moran, for the appellant. R. Dulany Whiting, for the respondent. LAUGHLIN, J.: This is an action to recover on a policy of life insurance issued by the defendant on the 11th day of October, 1905, on the life of Edward Y. Eltonhead, plaintiff's husband, now deceased, and in which the plaintiff was named as beneficiary. The provision, however, designating the plaintiff as beneficiary authorized the decedent to change the beneficiary as therein provided. It was provided that