Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Tannenbaum

MOREMEN, Justice

(concurring).

I am compelled to concur with the majority opinion, not for the reason that I am willing to accept the legal philosophy therein affirmed, but only because the opinion, under the facts presented, clearly and succinctly applies the rules of conduct which were in force at the time the application was signed and the medical examination was had.

All legal standards or rules should be subject to definition, and, after having been defined according to the practical wisdom of the era, should acquire some stability. In modern life it is sometimes more important to know the rules, than to recognize the reasons behind them. The penalty for the ¡breach of the rule is always crystal clear and rigid, so, therefore, the rule itself should be lucid and sharp.

; I do not imply that a rule of law should not be changed, when the reason for the rule has become extinct, or when the rule is the result of unsound reasoning. A change in policy (under our system of' jurisprudence) should be made only- after notice of some character, and not abruptly after the rights of the parties have vested under the existing law.

By the holding in the Roberts case, we overruled the preexisting law. The minority of the court believe that we- should return to the original thought expressed in earlier cases, which I believe was correct in principle. However, at this time, I feel that the demands of the doctrine of stare decisis outweigh any tendency which I have to .join them.