
    George Baumiller, Respondent, v. The Workingman’s Co-operative Association, Appellant.
    (New York Common Pleas—General Term,
    June, 1894.)
    A. claim that the action is prematurely brought is not available under a general denial.
    In an action on a policy of insurance, default in proof of compliance with the conditions of the policy is a defense which must be pleaded and established.
    Appeal from judgment of District Court.
    
      W. B. Donihee, for appellant.
    
      Joseph Steiner, for respondent.
   Pryor, J.

In an action on a policy of insurance in the Workingman’s Co-operative Association, for “sick benefits,” the plaintiff had judgment, to reverse which the defendant urges the present appeal.

He challenges the judgment upon, three grounds:

First. That the action was brought prematurely, because before the expiration of the thirty days allowed by the policy. The fact is not apparent, and it was an affirmative defense of which the appellant could not avail himself under his general denial.

Second. ■ That no sufficient proof of plaintiff’s claim was presented to the association. We think otherwise; at all ■events the defect, if any, was waived by the omission of a seasonable and specific objection.

Thirdly. That the plaintiff defaulted in proof of compliance with the condition of the policy. But this, too, was a defense which the appellant should have alleged and established. Richmond v. Ins. Co., 79 N. Y. 230; Piedmont, etc., Ins. Co. v. Ewing, 92 U. S. 377.

Another answer to the appeal is, that the motion to dismiss the complaint omitted to sjiecify the particulars of nonperformance of conditions. Webb v. Odell, 49 N. Y. 583.

The judgment consists with the justice of the case, and is ■not invalidated by any legal error.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Bookstaveb and Bischoff, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.  