EX PARTE PHŒNIX INSURANCE COMPANY & OTHERS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Insurance companies sued on a single contract were held to have distinct liabilities requiring separate decrees, and the Supreme Court affirmed that such separate decrees against distinct parties cannot be joined to confer appellate jurisdiction over multiple defendants in a single suit.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice "Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
The rule is well settled that distinct decrees against distinct parties on distinct causes of action, or on a single cause of action in which there are distinct liabilities, cannot be joined to give this court jurisdiction on appeal. Seaver v. Bigelows, 5 Wall. 208; Ex parte Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., 106 U. S. 5; Schwed v. Smith, 106 U. S. 188; Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co. v. Turner, 106 U. S. 265, 270; Adams Crittenden, 106 U. S. 576; Hawley v. Fairbanks, 108 U. S. 543; Fourth National Bank v. Stout, 113 U. S. 684; Stewart v. Dunham, 115 U. S. 61, 64. This is such a case. The suit was brought on a single instrument, by which, as it was adjudged, an agent of the several insurance companies named bound them severally, each for its proportionate share of one-fourth, to insure the property of Mrs. Helen M. Eitton for $12,000, and the decree is against .each company separately for its separate obligation under this instrument, to wit, $3433.50, and no more. The bill alleged the separate liability of each company, and prayed in substance, for decrees against them severally for tbe proportion assumed by each in tbe contract. Each company answered separately, all setting up the same defences.
Under these circumstances it was right for the Circuit Court to refuse the allowance of an appeal, and
The petition for a mandamus is consequently denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gibson v. Shufeldt, 122 U.S. 27 (U.S. 1887)…l from the dismissal of a bill to assert a right against two [*38] defendants in two distinct certificates of indebtedness, field by them. severally, for sums severally less, though, together more, than that amount; and in Ex parte Phoenix Ins. Co., 117 U. S. 367, that four insurance companies could not appeal from a decree that each of them should pay $3000 to the plaintiff. In the less frequent instances in which similar questions have arisen in proceedings at common law, the same distinctions have been m…
-
Walter v. Ne. R.R. Co., 147 U.S. 370 (U.S. 1893)…t of a note on which their ancestor was boffnd, and separate judgments were rendered against 'each for his proportionate share, this court had jurisdiction in error only over such judgments as exceeded $5000; and, again, in Ex parte Phœnix Ins. Co., 117 U. S. 367, that distinct decrees against different parties on a single cause of action in which there were distinct liabilities, could not be joined to give this court jurisdiction on appeal. In that case the suit was brought upon a single policy of insurance…
-
United States v. Sentinel Fire INS. Co., 178 F.2d 217 (5th Cir. 1949)…which emerges from the record as a consequence of the opinion of a majority of the court as to the nature of the suit. . Town of Elgin v. Marshall, 106 U.S. 578, 582, 1 S.Ct. 484, 27 L.Ed. 249; Ex Parte Phoenix Ins. Co., 117 U.S. 369, 6 S.Ct. 772, 29 L.Ed. 923; Clay v. Field, 138 U.S. 479, 11 S.Ct. 419, 34 L.Ed. 1044; Di Giovanni v. Camden Ins. Association, 296 U.S. 64, 67, 56 S.Ct. 1, 80 L.Ed. 47; Thomson v. Gaskill, 315 U.S. 442, 447, 62 S.Ct. 673, 86 L.Ed. 951. . Although this action was filed on Nov.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Stewart & Others v. Dunham & Others, 115 U.S. 61 (U.S. 1885)
- Seaver v. Bigelows, 5 Wall. 208 (U.S. 1866)
- Farmers' Loan & Tr. Co. v. Waterman, 106 U.S. 265 (U.S. 1882)
- Hawley v. Fairbanks and Others, 108 U.S. 543 (U.S. 1883)
- Ex parte Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 106 U.S. 5 (U.S. 1882)
- Schwed v. Smith, 106 U.S. 188 (U.S. 1882)
- Adams v. Crittenden, 106 U.S. 576 (U.S. 1882)
- Fourth Nat'l Bank v. Stout & Others, 113 U.S. 684 (U.S. 1885)