Connecticut General Life Ins. v. Pierce

Third Circuit

Connecticut General Life Ins. v. Pierce

110 F.2d 27, 1938 U.S. App. LEXIS 4606

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedDecember 9, 1938

DocketNo. 6710

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 110 F.2d 27 (Connecticut General Life Ins. v. Pierce) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Connecticut General Life Ins. v. Pierce, 110 F.2d 27, 1938 U.S. App. LEXIS 4606 (3d Cir. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant filed a bill for a declaratory judgment pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act (Act of June 14, 1934, 48 Stat. 955, Jud. Code, Sec. 274d, 28 U.S.C. § 400, 28 U.S. C.A. § 400) and for an accounting against the appellee, whereby the appellant sought to have its rights and the rights of the appellee, growing out of a long course of dealing between the parties respectively as principal and agent, determined and adjudicated. The court below dismissed the bill upon the ground that a declaratory judgment would serve no useful purpose since all of the rights of the appellant might be preserved to it and determined in an action at law pending in the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, brought by the appellee against the appellant.

The appeal was argued before this court but within a short time thereafter the action at law referred to (Pierce v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company,¹ District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, June Term, 1937, No. 20,022) was tried and resulted in a verdict and a judgment in favor of the appellant, the appellant, however, having tendered to the appellee $707.75 which it admitted was due to the appellee. The questions presented for our consideration by the pending appeal were all presented in the action at law and have been rendered moot by the adjudication in that action of the rights of the parties.

Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant filed a bill for a declaratory judgment pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act (Act of June 14, 1934, 48 Stat. 955, Jud. Code, Sec. 274d, 28 U.S.C. § 400, 28 U.S. C.A. § 400) and for an accounting against the appellee, whereby the appellant sought to have its rights and the rights of the appellee, growing out of a long course of dealing between the parties respectively as principal and agent, determined and adjudicated. The court below dismissed the bill upon the ground that a declaratory judgment would serve no useful purpose since all of the rights of the appellant might be preserved to it and determined in an action at law pending in the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, brought by the appellee against the appellant.

The appeal was argued before this court but within a short time thereafter the action at law referred to (Pierce v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company,¹ District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, June Term, 1937, No. 20,022) was tried and resulted in a verdict and a judgment in favor of the appellant, the appellant, however, having tendered to the appellee $707.75 which it admitted was due to the appellee. The questions presented for our consideration by the pending appeal were all presented in the action at law and have been rendered moot by the adjudication in that action of the rights of the parties.

Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 F.2d 27, 1938 U.S. App. LEXIS 4606, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/connecticut-general-life-ins-v-pierce-ca3-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack