Bradbury v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Ass'n
New Jersey Court of Chancery
On demurrer to bill.'
1Opinion of the Court
Pitney, V. C.
The object of the bill is to restore complainant to his standing •and pecuniary rights in the defendant association, which he says he has temporarily lost by failing to pay his bi-monthly dues on the precise day upon which they came due.
Two points are made against the bill:
First. That it fails to show facts entitling complainant .to .relief.
Second. That complainant’s remedy is by mandamus.
The bill is somewhat meagre in its statements, so much so that -complainant’s counsel suggested an amendment. Without determining whether it is sufficient in its present shape, I will con- •…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Cohen v. . N.Y. Mutual Life Insurance Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Meyer v. . Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1878
- Day v. Connecticut General Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1878
- Parrott v. City of BridgeportSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1876
- State ex rel. Bohannon v. County Court of Howard CountySupreme Court of Missouri · 1867
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- N.Y. Life Insurance Co. v. WeissSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1943