Carson v. Gore-Meenan Co.
District Court, D. Connecticut
At Law. Action by Martha J. Carson, administratrix, against the Gore-Meenan Company. On demurrer to certain defenses in the answer.
1Opinion of the Court
THOMAS, District Judge.
[1] After the decision sustaining the demurrer to the second defense of the defendant’s answer, the defendant, with the permission of the court, amended its second and third defenses. These defenses, as amended, aver that prior to the appointment of the plaintiff as administratrix, and before the bringing of the action, the decedent’s widow, who is also the administratrix, for a valuable consideration, released and settled and gave a full accord and satisfaction of all claims arising against the defendant by reason of the decedent’s death, and for a valuable…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- McElligott v. RandolphSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1891
- Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. HoseaIndiana Supreme Court · 1899
- Goodsell v. Hartford & New Haven RailroadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1865
- Yelton v. Evansville & Indianapolis RailroadIndiana Supreme Court · 1893
- Maney v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1893
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- National Carloading Corp. v. Phoenix-El Paso Express, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1943
- United States v. Standard Oil Co. of CaliforniaDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1937
- Hazzard v. AlexanderSuperior Court of Delaware · 1934
- National Carloading Corp. v. Phœnix-El Paso Express, Inc.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1943
- ATLANTA NEWSPAPERS INC. v. DoyalCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1951
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.