Pittel v. Fidelity Mut. Life Ass'n
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Texas. “The plaintiffs in error, Caroline H. Pittel and her daughter, Mary Karowski. joined by her husband, Herman Karowski, on March 6, 1896, instituted suit in the district court of Galveston county, Tex., against the Fidelity Mutual Life Association of Philadelphia and Albert Behrends, to recover the sum of $5,000, claimed to be due and payable to plaintiffs under a certain certificate of…
Read the full summary
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Texas. “The plaintiffs in error, Caroline H. Pittel and her daughter, Mary Karowski. joined by her husband, Herman Karowski, on March 6, 1896, instituted suit in the district court of Galveston county, Tex., against the Fidelity Mutual Life Association of Philadelphia and Albert Behrends, to recover the sum of $5,000, claimed to be due and payable to plaintiffs under a certain certificate of membership in said association, issued by said association to Edward Pittel, the husband of Caroline Pittel, and father of…
1Opinion of the CourtSwayne, District Judge
(after stating the facts). It is contended on the part of the plaintiff in error that this plea of “res adjudicata” did not in proper terms allege that the former cause went to judgment •upon the same issue, and was between the same parties. We think it does not require a careful inspection of the plea to prove this objection bad. It clearly shows that in the former suit the administrator of Edward Pittel was a party, and refers to and adopts all the documents, pleadings, and judgment in the former case as a part of this plea. The cause went to trial thereon without any objection on the part…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Knight v. HamakarOregon Supreme Court · 1901
- Bowles v. Cardinal Cutlery Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1946
- Wolfe v. WolfeMissouri Court of Appeals · 1911