Rankin v. Fitchburg Mutual Fire Insurance
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Bill in equity, filed December 5, 1888, alleging, in substance, that the defendant insurance company for many years prior to July 7, 1881, conducted its business in two classes, and kept the assets and liabilities of each class distinct from each other; that the plaintiffs before and after that date were policy holders of the second class; that on that date, the assets of the second class being in excess of its liabilities, the defendant, by a vote of a few of its policy…
Read the full summary
Bill in equity, filed December 5, 1888, alleging, in substance, that the defendant insurance company for many years prior to July 7, 1881, conducted its business in two classes, and kept the assets and liabilities of each class distinct from each other; that the plaintiffs before and after that date were policy holders of the second class; that on that date, the assets of the second class being in excess of its liabilities, the defendant, by a vote of a few of its policy holders, consolidated the assets and liabilities of both classes into one class, in which it has since conducted its…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
As no report of the evidence was requested at the hearing below, the only question raised by the appeal is whether the decree is warranted under the pleadings. There can be no doubt that it is so warranted. O'Hare v. Downing, 130 Mass. 16. Decree affirmed.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- O'Hare v. DowningMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
3Cited by1 opinion
- Anderson v. LearoydMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1900