Legal Opinion

Fitzgibbon, Admr. v. Walcutt

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 26, 1933No. 23854PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStephenson, J.

At the outset it will be borne in mind that this relief association is not an old-line insurance company. It substantially fills the requirements of a mutual benefit association. The primary purpose of this arrangement of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company was to enable its employes to provide for those who had claims upon their bounty, and not for interlopers.

In the instrument changing the beneficiaries we find the following language:

“I, Charles M. Walcutt, * # * by virtue of application dated the seventeenth day of December, 1909, and numbered 194984, do hereby withdraw any designation of…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Order of Railway Conductors v. KosterMissouri Court of Appeals · 1893
  2. Schauberger v. Morel's AdministratorCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1916
  3. Western & Southern Life Insurance v. WebsterCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1916

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance v. BurkeWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Adams EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1972
  3. Herdman v. McCormickIndiana Court of Appeals · 1942
  4. Adams EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1972

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API