Legal Opinion

Edington v. Michigan Mutual Life Insurance

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided September 15, 1915PublishedCited by 16 opinions

FROM HAMILTON. Error to the Chancry Court of Hamilton County.— W. B. Garvin, Chancellor.

1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Neil

This action was brought to recover on a policy of $5,000 on the life of John S. Edington. Copy of bill and process were duly served on the defendant, but, failing to answer within the time allowed by law, an order pro confesso was taken, whereby all of the facts stated were, in the usual course, adjudged to have been admitted. Thereupon a decree was entered against the defendant for the full amount of the policy, less a loan of $580. Judgment was also rendered for twenty-five per cent, penalty under Acts 1901, ch. 141. The aggregate balance thus found was $5,525. More than thirty days after…

2Cited by16 opinions

  1. Nickas v. CapadalisCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1997
  2. Richardson v. American Nat. Ins. Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1931
  3. Dean v. Union National Fire Insurance CompanyLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1974
  4. Phillips v. North River InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1931
  5. Tennison Brothers, Inc. v. William H. Thomas, Jr.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 2017

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API