Legal Opinion

Isaac Van Dyke Co. v. Moll

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 3, 1928No. Docket No. 42PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSharpe, J.

The question here presented is aptly stated by defendants’ counsel as follows:

“Under the garnishment law of Michigan, can the cash value of a life insurance policy be reached by a creditor of the insured, when the insured has not performed the acts made necessary by the policy to entitle him to maintain an action against the insurer for the same?”

The “acts” referred to are the election to take, the surrender of the policy, and demand for payment. The carefully prepared briefs which have been filed have greatly aided us in reaching a conclusion. It is conceded that the question is a new one.in…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance v. McCueSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
  2. Farmers & Merchants Bank v. National Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Georgia · 1926
  3. Boisseau v. Bass' AdministratorSupreme Court of Virginia · 1902
  4. Ellison v. StrawWisconsin Supreme Court · 1903
  5. Anthracite Insurance v. SearsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1872

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

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. In Re ElliottWashington Supreme Court · 1968
  2. Hoekstra v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1986
  3. United States v. Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1942
  4. United States v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1942
  5. Hammons v. SCHRUNKOregon Supreme Court · 1956

16 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