Legal Opinion

Coghlan v. Supreme Conclave Improved Order Heptasophs

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided June 30, 1914PublishedCited by 3 opinions

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

  1. Sulz v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Ass'nNew York Court of Appeals · 1895
  2. Daniels v. PrattMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1887
  3. Mathieu v. MathieuCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1910
  4. Emmons v. Supreme Conclave Improved Order HeptasophsSuperior Court of Delaware · 1906

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Bottomley v. BottomleyNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1944
  2. McKinney v. Order of United Commercial Travelers of AmericaOhio Supreme Court · 1931
  3. Kopacka v. Roman & Greek Catholic Gymnastic Slovak Union SokolPassaic County Circuit Court, N.J. · 1936

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API