Legal Opinion

Rishel v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. of California

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Decided September 5, 1935No. 1217-1222PublishedCited by 39 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

McDERMOTT, Circuit Judge.

These are actions at law to recover the sums paid by way of single premiums for six annuity contracts. Plaintiff declares generally upon the common counts of moneys had and received for the use and benefit of his testate, but does not stop there. Instead, plaintiff sets out the annuity contracts granted for the sums paid, with other facts thought to justify rescission of the contracts and the recoveries prayed for notwithstanding, thereby anticipating the defense and alleging facts in avoidance thereof. The general allegations of the common counts are controlled and…

2Cases cited34 opinions

  1. Stipcich v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
  2. Spielman Motor Sales Co. v. DodgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
  3. Hume v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
  4. United States v. Jefferson Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1934
  5. Pulllman's Palace Car Co. v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1885

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

3Cited by39 opinions

  1. Rossiter v. VogelCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1943
  2. Guthmann v. La Vida LlenaNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1985
  3. Rumbaugh v. Winifrede Railroad CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1964
  4. Daniel v. Life Ins. Co. of VirginiaCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1937
  5. Gary v. American Casualty Co. of Reading, Pa.District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · 1990

34 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