Barfield v. Pacific Mutual Life Insurance

186 S.E. 735, 182 Ga. 704, 1936 Ga. LEXIS 547
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided July 10, 1936·No. No. 11074·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Atkinson, Justice.

It appearing from the allegations in the petition, construed most strongly against the pleader, that a claim is being made for indemnity that has accrued under the policy in which the insurer may defend, the petitioner has an adequate remedy at law; and consequently equity will not entertain jurisdiction to cancel the contract on the ground of the alleged fraud in the procurement. Enelow v. New York Life Insurance Co., 293 U. S. 379 (55 Sup. Ct. 310, 79 L. ed. 440).

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur. Harold Hirsch, Marion Smilh, W. B. Cody, and B. L. Cody, for plaintiff in error. Bryan, Middlebroolcs & Darter, contra.

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

Barfield v. Pacific Mutual Life Insurance, 186 S.E. 735, 182 Ga. 704, 1936 Ga. LEXIS 547 (Ga. 1936).

186 S.E. 735 (Barfield v. Pacific Mutual Life Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

National Life & Accident Insurance v. Preston
22 S.E.2d 157 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1942)
Lockett v. National Life & Accident Insurance
18 S.E.2d 550 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1942)
Penn Mutual Life Insurance v. Childs
7 S.E.2d 907 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1940)