Lamb v. Mutual Reserve Fund Ass'n

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania

Lamb v. Mutual Reserve Fund Ass'n

114 F. 1022, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4909

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 8, 1902

DocketNo. 53

StatusPublished

This text of 114 F. 1022 (Lamb v. Mutual Reserve Fund Ass'n) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lamb v. Mutual Reserve Fund Ass'n, 114 F. 1022, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4909 (circtedpa 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

DALLAS, Circuit Judge.

If the policies to which this bill of complaint relates-are in force, as is alleged, I perceive no reason for supposing that they might not be adjudged to be so, and any sums due upon them be recovered, in a' common-law action; and the argument which has been submitted on behalf of the complainant, apparently on the assumption that this is a suit for the reformation of a contract, is without pertinence. The bill contains no specific prayer for reformation of a contract, and if such relief should in any case be granted upon a prayer for general relief, which is at least doubtful, it could not be granted in this instance, because the case stated in the bill would not justify it. Story, Eq. 42; Pulton v. Colwell, 50 C. C. A. 537, 112 Fed. 831; Baldwin v. Fence Co. (C. C.) 67 Fed. 853. The defendant’s demurrer is allowed, and the bill of complaint is dismissed, with costs.

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

DALLAS, Circuit Judge.

If the policies to which this bill of complaint relates-are in force, as is alleged, I perceive no reason for supposing that they might not be adjudged to be so, and any sums due upon them be recovered, in a' common-law action; and the argument which has been submitted on behalf of the complainant, apparently on the assumption that this is a suit for the reformation of a contract, is without pertinence. The bill contains no specific prayer for reformation of a contract, and if such relief should in any case be granted upon a prayer for general relief, which is at least doubtful, it could not be granted in this instance, because the case stated in the bill would not justify it. Story, Eq. 42; Pulton v. Colwell, 50 C. C. A. 537, 112 Fed. 831; Baldwin v. Fence Co. (C. C.) 67 Fed. 853. The defendant’s demurrer is allowed, and the bill of complaint is dismissed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 F. 1022, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lamb-v-mutual-reserve-fund-assn-circtedpa-1902.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack