Loesch v. Manhattan Life Insurance
New York Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtCotillo, J.
This is a motion by the defendant to dismiss the amended complaint upon the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Alternative relief is asked for in the shape of an order to strike out two paragraphs on the ground that they are sham, redundant, irrelevant, etc. The complaint recites that on March 7, 1913, plaintiff entered into an agreement, a copy of which is annexed, by the terms of which he entered the employ of the defendant, to solicit life insurance for it in the city of New York, to collect premiums and to remit all collections to it; the…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Trinity Universal Insurance v. WillrichWashington Supreme Court · 1942
- Post v. Metropolitan Casualty InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1929
- Ogden v. Riverview Holding Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1929
- G. Goldberg & Sons, Inc. v. Gilet Building Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1929
- Kelley v. Prudence Co.New York Supreme Court · 1932
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.