Associated Indemnity Corp. v. Garrow Co.

Second Circuit

Associated Indemnity Corp. v. Garrow Co.

125 F.2d 462, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 4390, 1942 A.M.C. 390

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJanuary 29, 1942

DocketNo. 164

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 125 F.2d 462 (Associated Indemnity Corp. v. Garrow Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Associated Indemnity Corp. v. Garrow Co., 125 F.2d 462, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 4390, 1942 A.M.C. 390 (2d Cir. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon the merits of the controversy we are content to affirm upon Judge Clark’s opinion reported in 39 F.Supp. 100. We are not, however, to he understood as holding that the granting of declaratory relief is always mandatory rather than discretionary when another action is pending. Some of Judge Clark’s remarks concerning Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Co., 312 U.S. 270, 61 S.Ct. 510, 85 L.Ed. 826, have been thought to express that view. See Note, 51 Yale L.J. 511. We doubt if they go so far. At least we do not take that position. In the case at bar the issue of liability under the policy could not be raised in the pending tort action to which the insurer was not a party. It would have been an abuse of discretion not to decide it in the declaratory judgment suit. Excess Ins. Co. of America v. Brillhart, 10 Cir., 121 F.2d 776. As already stated, we think that it was rightly decided.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Upon the merits of the controversy we are content to affirm upon Judge Clark’s opinion reported in 39 F.Supp. 100. We are not, however, to he understood as holding that the granting of declaratory relief is always mandatory rather than discretionary when another action is pending. Some of Judge Clark’s remarks concerning Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Co., 312 U.S. 270, 61 S.Ct. 510, 85 L.Ed. 826, have been thought to express that view. See Note, 51 Yale L.J. 511. We doubt if they go so far. At least we do not take that position. In the case at bar the issue of liability under the policy could not be raised in the pending tort action to which the insurer was not a party. It would have been an abuse of discretion not to decide it in the declaratory judgment suit. Excess Ins. Co. of America v. Brillhart, 10 Cir., 121 F.2d 776. As already stated, we think that it was rightly decided.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 F.2d 462, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 4390, 1942 A.M.C. 390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/associated-indemnity-corp-v-garrow-co-ca2-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack