MUTUAL RESERVE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
HENRY C. BIRCH

U.S. | 1905-12-18
No. 344
200 U.S. 612 Supreme Court of the United States (1905) Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

In error to the Supreme Court of the State o'f New York.

Per Curiam.

Judgment affirmed with ten per cent damages, in addition to interest-and costs. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association v. Phelps, 190 U. S. 147; Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Spratley, 172 U. S. 602; Egan v. Hart, 165 U. S. 188; Richardson v. L. & N. Railroad Company, 169 U. S. 128; Young v. Valentine, 177 N. Y. 347; Woodward v. Mutual Reserve Life Insurance Company, 178 N. Y. 485; Birch v. Mutual Reserve Life Insurance Company, 181 N. Y. 583; S. C., 91 App. Div. 384.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Ozark Pipe Line Corp. v. Monier, 266 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1925)
  • Hunter v. Mut. Reserve Life Ins. Co., 218 U.S. 573 (U.S. 1910)
    …tiff, however, presses with earnestness, in support of his contention, the following cases: Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Spratley, 172 U. S. 602; Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association v. Phelps, 190 U. S. 147; Mutual Reserve Ins. Co. v. Birch, 200 U. S. 612; Commercial Mutual Accident Co. v. Davis, 213 U. S. 245. In the Spratley case the life insurance policy, which was the subject of the suit, was issued by the insurance company when it was concededly present and doing business in the State of Tennes…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw