Coghlan v. Supreme Conclave Improved Order Heptasophs
Supreme Court of New Jersey
On motion to strike ont defences.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Tbebtchabi), J.
This is a motion to strike out five separate defences contained in the defendant’s answer on the ground that they disclose no defence to the action.
The action is brought by the executor of the will of A. Judson Clark, deceased, against the Supreme Conclave Improved Order Heptasophs, a fraternal beneficial association of Maryland, operating by the usual subordinate lodge method. Plaintiff claims $.2,000, the amount due on a contributor’s endowment certificate made by the defendant as follows: “This certifies that A. J. Clark has been…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Sulz v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Ass'nNew York Court of Appeals · 1895
- Daniels v. PrattMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1887
- Mathieu v. MathieuCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1910
- Emmons v. Supreme Conclave Improved Order HeptasophsSuperior Court of Delaware · 1906
3Cited by3 opinions
- Bottomley v. BottomleyNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1944
- McKinney v. Order of United Commercial Travelers of AmericaOhio Supreme Court · 1931
- Kopacka v. Roman & Greek Catholic Gymnastic Slovak Union SokolPassaic County Circuit Court, N.J. · 1936