Legal Opinion · Dissent

Stonsz v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 27, 1936No. Appeal, 119Published

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion

by Me. Justice Maxey :

I cannot concur in the majority opinion unless the law gives me the authority to rewrite the contract between the two parties to this suit and that authority the law gives to nobody. It is one of the oldest established principles of law that in order for a contract to come into being between two parties, the acceptance of an offer must be identical with the offer. As the principle is stated in 6 R. C. L., page 608, section 31: “There must be no variance between the acceptance and the offer.” (Citing numerous cases.) 13 C. J., page 281, section 86,…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway v. Columbus Rolling MillSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  2. Insurance Co. v. Young's AdministratorSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
  3. Urian v. Scranton Life Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
  4. Starr v. Mutual Life InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1905
  5. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance v. NeafusCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1911

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API