Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Aetna Life Insurance Company v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Company
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Decided October 8, 1956No. 15776Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHutcheson, Chief Judge
This appeal from a summary judgment presents for review what, with minor and unimportant variations, is a twice told tale of two group annuity contracts entered into on April 1, 1934, and August 1, 1934, between Aetna Life Insurance Company, as insurer, and Freeport Sul-phur Company, on the one hand, and Texas Gulf Sulphur Company, on the other, as employer. It is concerned with the contentions, counter-contentions, and lit-igations arising out of the fact that in neither of the contracts was a time of termination stated, and thereby hangs the tale.
The first contract gave rise to the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- People v. . O'BrienNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
- Detroit v. Detroit Citizens' Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1902
- City of Minneapolis v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1910
- Coffin v. LandisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1864
- Freeport Sulphur Co. v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Freeport Sulphur CoCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1953
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.