MARGARET FINN, Administratrix of DANIEL MAGRATH, deceased, v HENRY JOHN CHETWYND TALBOT, commonly called LORD VISCOUNT INGESTRE, one of the Directors of the Marinersƒ€™ and General Life Assurance Company

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 07 May 1850
• Date: 07 May 1850
• Court: Exchequer (Ireland)

Exchequer.

MARGARET FINN, Administratrix of DANIEL MAGRATH, deceased,

and

HENRY JOHN CHETWYND TALBOT, commonly called LORD VISCOUNT INGESTRE, one of the Directors of the Marinersƒ€™ and General Life Assurance Company.

Cossey v. DiggonsENR 2 B. & Al. 546.

Fitch v. Rauling and others 2 H. Black. 394, n. b.

Powell and others v. Sonnett and others 1 Blighƒ€™s N. R. 545.

Garvin v. Carroll 10 Ir. Law Rep. 323.

Scanlan v. Scales 5 Ir. Law Rep. 139; on appeal, 6 Ir. Law Rep. 367, Exch. Ch.

Fawcett, v. Boyes and another 14 Law Jour. 116, Exch.

420 CASES AT LAW. E. T. 1850. &chequer. MARGARET FINN, Administratrix of DANIEL MAGRATH, deceased, v. HENRY JOHN CHETWYND TALBOT, commonly called LORD VISCOUNT INGESTRE, one of the Directors of the Mariners' and General Life Assurance Company.* (Exchequer.) May 7. Debt, on life polic.- DEBT, on policy of insurance-The policy of insurance bore date the y Pleas (inter alia) nil debet, 11th of April 1844, and amongst other things recited that the and that the assured Daniel Magrath had caused to be delivered into the office insured had untruly al- of the said Company a declaration, or statement in writing, bearing leged that he had not then date the 11th of April 1844, signed by the said Daniel Magrath, lately consult ed a medical whereby it was declared that the age of the said Daniel Magrath did man (the lat ter statement not then exceed fifty-eight years ; that he was then in good health ; by insured be ing a matter was never afflicted with fits, palpitations or sudden faintings ; that of warranty). The jury he was not subject to habitual cough, spitting of blood or asthma ; found the nil debet issue for that he was never the subject of gout, rheumatism, insanity or any the plaintiff, and the other other constitutional or hereditary complaint ; that he had had the issue for the defendant.measles ; had had the small-pock ; had been vaccinated ; and that he Liberty re- was not aware of any other circumstances or information respecting served for either party to the past or present state of his health with which the Company ought apply to have a verdict and to be made acquainted ; and that thereby the said assured had judgment en tered for him. agreed that such declaration or statement should be the basis of the On application of plaintiff, contract between himself and the said Company : and by the said Held, the dant was de- fen policy it was amongst other things provided, "that in case any entitled to " untrue or fraudulent allegation be contained in the declaration or have a general judgment for him on the record, notwithstanding the finding on the nil debet issue. Held also, that the plaintiff having served notice within the first six days of Term, pursuant to the Rules of the Court, and moved thereon, that defendant not precluded from having judgment entered in consequence of his not having also served notice within the six days. * RICHARDS, B., absente. CASES AT LAW. 421 " statement so as as aforesaid delivered into the office of the said E. T. 1850. Exchequer. " Company, then this policy of assurance should be void, and all " moneys paid thereunder should be forfeited to the said Coro- FINN pany:, The declaration contained three special counts and the money counts. The first count recited the policy in full, including the conditions of assurance, and averred inter alia that " at the time of making " and signing said declaration, and at the time of making said policy " of insurance as aforesaid, the said Daniel Magrath was in good " health," &c., following the policy ; also, " that the declaration " thereinbefore mentioned and referred to in said policy of insurance " was in all respects true, to wit, at &c., and that there was not any " untrue or fraudulent allegation contained therein, to wit, at" &c.; and also averred compliance with the conditions of assurance, which it is unnecessary to state. The second count was similar to the first, except that it omitted the recital of the conditions of assurance, and the consequential averments of compliance therewith. The defendant pleaded twenty-three pleas-First, ne unques admix. Secondly, non est factum to the first count. Thirdly, idem to the second count. Fourthly, " And for a further plea, &c., beÂ" cause he says that the said declaration, referred to in the said "policy of insurance in the said first count mentioned did not conÂ" tamn a true and faithful representation of the facts according to the "true intent and meaning of the said policy of insurance, but on the " contrary thereof contained an untrue and unfaithful representaÂ" tion of the facts, in this, to wit, that the...