Crosland-Cullen Company v. Crosland
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtRodmaN, J.
Plaintiff’s cause of action is based on the assertion that defendant, by virtue of a void assignment, has received from insurer monies which should have been paid to plaintiff, the beneficiary in the policy of insurance.
Defendant admits receipt of the money pursuant to the provisions of the assignment. She affirmatively asserts that plaintiff’s right to question the validity of this assignment has been foreclosed by a decree of a court of competent jurisdiction in an action brought by plaintiff against the insurer. As a part of her plea of res judicata she attaches a complete transcript of…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Bernhard v. Bank of America National Trust & Saving AssociationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Israel v. Wood Dolson Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1956
- Bruszewski v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1950
- Good Health Dairy Products Corp. v. EmeryNew York Court of Appeals · 1937
- Eagle, Star & British Dominions Insurance v. HellerSupreme Court of Virginia · 1927
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Thomas M. McInnis & Associates, Inc. v. HallSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1986
- Sink v. EasterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
- Pat Perusse Realty Co. v. LingoCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1968
- Tidwell v. BookerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
- Blanche H. Lober v. Willis MooreCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1969
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.