Barrett v. Supreme Conclave Improved Order of Heptasophs

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Barrett v. Supreme Conclave Improved Order of Heptasophs

107 A. 158, 265 Pa. 64, 1919 Pa. LEXIS 498

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 12, 1919

DocketAppeal, No. 234

StatusPublished

This text of 107 A. 158 (Barrett v. Supreme Conclave Improved Order of Heptasophs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barrett v. Supreme Conclave Improved Order of Heptasophs, 107 A. 158, 265 Pa. 64, 1919 Pa. LEXIS 498 (Pa. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Though John J. Barrett changed the beneficiaries named in the certificates issued to him by the appellee, there was but one fund in its hands to be paid by it to any one of them. The appellant declined to make claim to this fund when a rule was served upon her to interplead in the suit brought by the wife of the deceased against the appellee on the certificate in which she was named as the beneficiary. In her answer to the rule to interplead the appellant averred that she claimed another fund in the hands of the appellee, and, in view of this, the learned court below correctly held that she was estopped in this action from making any claim against the society. The material facts in the case appear in the opinion of the learned court below discharging the rule for a new trial, and, on that opinion, the judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

Though John J. Barrett changed the beneficiaries named in the certificates issued to him by the appellee, there was but one fund in its hands to be paid by it to any one of them. The appellant declined to make claim to this fund when a rule was served upon her to interplead in the suit brought by the wife of the deceased against the appellee on the certificate in which she was named as the beneficiary. In her answer to the rule to interplead the appellant averred that she claimed another fund in the hands of the appellee, and, in view of this, the learned court below correctly held that she was estopped in this action from making any claim against the society. The material facts in the case appear in the opinion of the learned court below discharging the rule for a new trial, and, on that opinion, the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 A. 158, 265 Pa. 64, 1919 Pa. LEXIS 498, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barrett-v-supreme-conclave-improved-order-of-heptasophs-pa-1919.