Fidelity v. Sisters

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Fidelity v. Sisters

165 A. 430, 112 N.J. Eq. 579, 1933 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 159

CourtNew Jersey Court of Chancery

DecidedApril 10, 1933

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 165 A. 430 (Fidelity v. Sisters) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fidelity v. Sisters, 165 A. 430, 112 N.J. Eq. 579, 1933 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 159 (N.J. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

The motion is to strike the bill filed by an employer's insurance carrier which paid compensation to an injured employe to restrain the tort feasor from paying damages, about to be paid, to the employe without reimbursing the employer's carrier the compensation.

The allegation is that the employer's carrier paid the compensation in accordance with its agreement to indemnify the employer and is followed by the averment of a legal conclusion that payment by the carrier is tantamount to payment by the assured.

The case presented by the bill is in principle like Degler v.Domejka, 112 N.J. Eq. 588, just decided upon the authority ofErie Railroad Co. v. Michelson, 111 N.J. Eq. 541; New York,Susquehanna and Western Railroad Co. v. *Page 580 Huebschmann, Ibid. 547; Cook v. Phillips, 109 N.J. Law 371.

The motion is granted and the bill will be dismissed.

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

The motion is to strike the bill filed by an employer's insurance carrier which paid compensation to an injured employe to restrain the tort feasor from paying damages, about to be paid, to the employe without reimbursing the employer's carrier the compensation.

The allegation is that the employer's carrier paid the compensation in accordance with its agreement to indemnify the employer and is followed by the averment of a legal conclusion that payment by the carrier is tantamount to payment by the assured.

The case presented by the bill is in principle like Degler v.Domejka, 112 N.J. Eq. 588, just decided upon the authority ofErie Railroad Co. v. Michelson, 111 N.J. Eq. 541; New York,Susquehanna and Western Railroad Co. v. *Page 580 Huebschmann, Ibid. 547; Cook v. Phillips, 109 N.J. Law 371.

The motion is granted and the bill will be dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 A. 430, 112 N.J. Eq. 579, 1933 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fidelity-v-sisters-njch-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack