Legal Opinion
Fourth Nat. Bank v. Woolfolk
Supreme Court of Alabama
Decided October 17, 1929No. 3 Div. 892PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
TIIOMAS, X
The bill was that of inter-pleader by the assurer bringing in rival claimants, the beneficiary named in the policies, and the alleged assignee thereof. In neither of the policies did the assured reserve the right to change the beneficiary without the consent 'of the latter.
The full amount due on the policies was paid into the registry of the court, and there was order of discharge of the assurer. Marsh v. Mutual Life Insurance Co., 200 Ala. 438, 70 So. 370. The suit proceeded between the claimants of the fund. The contract of insurance, in so far as it concerned the company, was…
2Cases cited38 opinions
- Ogden v. SaundersSupreme Court of the United States · 1827
- Bank of Augusta v. EarleSupreme Court of the United States · 1839
- New York Life Insurance v. HeadSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Blanchard v. RussellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1816
- Lindsay v. CooperSupreme Court of Alabama · 1891
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Merchants' Nat. Bank of Mobile v. HubbardSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
- Ivey v. Dixon Investment CompanySupreme Court of Alabama · 1969
- Phillips v. PhillipsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1930
- Ideal Structures Corporation v. Levine Huntsville Development CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1968
- Taylor v. Southern Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1933
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.