Legal Opinion
Manhattan Life Ins. v. Prussian Life Ins.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided January 7, 1924No. 157PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHough, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts'as above). Reduced to its lowest terms plaintiff’s proposition is this: My con*41tract with Prussian meant that, when I exercised my right of cancellation by giving a month’s notice in writing, I could thereafter leave the Prussian as. reinsurer on such then existing risks as I did not care to place elsewhere, but as to any risk on which I preferred other reinsurers, or no reinsurance, I could whenever I pleased cease paying premiums. Colloquially put, this interpretation empowered Manhattan to take at pleasure the cream of its business from Prussian, and leave the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Norrington v. WrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Anvil Mining Co. v. HumbleSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Rosenthal Paper Co. v. National Folding Box & Paper Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1919
- Cleveland Rolling Mill v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Fame Insurance Co.'s AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1877
3Cited by11 opinions
- Pioneer Ins. Co. v. Alliance Ins. Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1940
- Bear, Stearns Funding, Inc. v. Interface Group-Nevada, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2005
- Commissioner v. R. J. Darnell, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1932
- Refinemet International Co. v. Eastbourne N.V.District Court, S.D. New York · 1993
- Pioneer Life Insurance v. Alliance Life InsuranceIllinois Supreme Court · 1940
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.