Dwinnell v. Minneapolis Fire & Marine Mutual Insurance
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Hennepin county by plaintiffs, as receivers appointed to wind up the affairs of defendant company, to recover from the defendants other than said company the amounts of their respective subscriptions to a so-called “guaranty fund.” From separate orders, Elliott, J., overruling their separate demurrers to the amended complaint, defendants, Titus Mareck, Leonard Paulle and others, and B. Phillips, Jr., and others, appealed.
Read the full summary
Action in the district court for Hennepin county by plaintiffs, as receivers appointed to wind up the affairs of defendant company, to recover from the defendants other than said company the amounts of their respective subscriptions to a so-called “guaranty fund.” From separate orders, Elliott, J., overruling their separate demurrers to the amended complaint, defendants, Titus Mareck, Leonard Paulle and others, and B. Phillips, Jr., and others, appealed. In any event the demurrer should be sustained for the reason that several causes of action have been improperly united in the amended…
1Opinion of the CourtLewis, J.
A demurrer to a former complaint in this action was sustained (87 Minn. 59, 91 N. W. 266, 1098) upon the ground that the complaint did not show that respondent was organized as a marine insurance company, or that it possessed, or ever exercised, the power to issue marine policies. Upon reargument the opinion was so modified as to reserve the question of the construction of the subscription agreement. The complaint, having been amended, was demurred to again upon the same ground, and upon the additional ground that several causes of action were improperly united. Appeal was taken from an order…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Dwinnell v. Minneapolis Fire & Marine Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1902
3Cited by1 opinion
- Dwinnell v. Minneapolis Fire & Marine Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1906