Daix v. Supreme Council A. L. H.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania
At Law. Action to enforce rescission of a contract of life insurance and to .recover payments made thereunder. On motion for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defense.
1Opinion of the Court
J. B. McPHERSON, District Judge.
It is conceded by the defendant that the questions raised by its two affidavits of defense have been decided against it by the Court of Appeals for this Circuit in the case of Supreme Council, etc., v. Black, 123 Fed. 650, except the effect of the present plaintiff’s delay in rescinding his contract of insurance, and the effect of á by-law that was not set up as a defense in the suit brought by Black.
With regard to the first of these questions the facts are as follows: The defendant passed an invalid by-law in August, 1900, whereby it sought to reduce the sum…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Roehm v. HorstSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Supreme Council A. L. H. v. BlackCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1903
3Cited by4 opinions
- McAlarney v. Supreme Council A. L. H.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1904
- Davies v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of CanadaDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1932
- Lippincott v. Supreme Council A. L. H.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1904
- Stephenson v. Supreme Council A. L. H.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1904