Prudential Ins. Co. v. Merritt-Chapman
New Jersey Court of Chancery
1Opinion of the Court
The motion to strike the bill of complaint is based upon five separate and distinct grounds, all of which may be combined into the contention that the bill does not state an equitable cause of action and that this court is without jurisdiction to entertain the bill because complainant has an adequate remedy at law. The bill seeks the rescission and cancellation of a certain contract and policy of life insurance issued by the complainant company on the life of one William H. Baker, the president of the defendant corporation, on the ground that it was obtained by fraud. There is also a prayer…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Eastern District Piece Dye Works, Inc. v. Travelers InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1923
- Minsker v. John Hancock Mutual Life InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1930
- Eggers v. AndersonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1901
- Commercial, C., Co. v. Southern Surety Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1926
- New York Life Ins. Co. v. SteinmanNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1928
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance v. Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1932
- Prudential Ins. v. Merritt-Chapman ScottNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1933
- Russ v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1970
- Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. SternNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1938
- Lewis v. MorganNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1942
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.