Messinger v. New England Mut. Life Ins.

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

Messinger v. New England Mut. Life Ins.

59 F. 416, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 2700

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1894

DocketNo. 16

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 59 F. 416 (Messinger v. New England Mut. Life Ins.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Messinger v. New England Mut. Life Ins., 59 F. 416, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 2700 (circtwdpa 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

BHFFIHGrTOH, District Judge.

A bill in equity is here filed by I. H. Messinger, administrator d. b. n. of Joseph O. Raudenbusli, against the New England Mutual Life Insurance Company, to cancel and rescind a release executed by a former administrator of all claims under a policy issued by the respondent company upon the life of said decedent. To this bill a plea is filed, setting forth that a final decree had been entered in favor of the respondent (which was unappealed from) in a suit in this court, at Ho. 34, Hovember term, 1892, between the same parties, and involving the same subject-matter. In the former case the respondent demurred to the bill because it did not disclose facts sufficient to constitute a cause [417]*417of action, which demurrer was sustained by the court; and subsequently, no application to amend being made, a final decree was entered, dismissing the bill. Such a decree is a final judgment of the rights of the parties, and is a bar to a subsequent suit between the same parties on the same subject-matter. Alley v. Nott, 111 U. S. 473, 4 Sup. Ct. 495; Bissell v. Spring Valley Tp., 124 U. S. 232, 8 Sup. Ct. 495.

The parties to the present suit, and the subject-matter, being the same as those in the former suit, we are of opinion the plea is well founded, in point of law, and presents a complete defense to the bill, and the latter should be dismissed.

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

BHFFIHGrTOH, District Judge.

A bill in equity is here filed by I. H. Messinger, administrator d. b. n. of Joseph O. Raudenbusli, against the New England Mutual Life Insurance Company, to cancel and rescind a release executed by a former administrator of all claims under a policy issued by the respondent company upon the life of said decedent. To this bill a plea is filed, setting forth that a final decree had been entered in favor of the respondent (which was unappealed from) in a suit in this court, at Ho. 34, Hovember term, 1892, between the same parties, and involving the same subject-matter. In the former case the respondent demurred to the bill because it did not disclose facts sufficient to constitute a cause [417]*417of action, which demurrer was sustained by the court; and subsequently, no application to amend being made, a final decree was entered, dismissing the bill. Such a decree is a final judgment of the rights of the parties, and is a bar to a subsequent suit between the same parties on the same subject-matter. Alley v. Nott, 111 U. S. 473, 4 Sup. Ct. 495; Bissell v. Spring Valley Tp., 124 U. S. 232, 8 Sup. Ct. 495.

The parties to the present suit, and the subject-matter, being the same as those in the former suit, we are of opinion the plea is well founded, in point of law, and presents a complete defense to the bill, and the latter should be dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 F. 416, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 2700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/messinger-v-new-england-mut-life-ins-circtwdpa-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack