Eggleston v. Centennial Mut. Life Ass'n of Iowa
| Decision Date | 03 December 1883 |
| Citation | 19 F. 201 |
| Parties | EGGLESTON and others v. CENTENNIAL MUT. L. ASS'N OF IOWA. [1] |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
George D. Reynolds, for plaintiffs.
Davis & Davis and Newman & Blake, for defendant.
A motion has been filed to strike out parts of the answer to this amended petition, which motion raises the same question heretofore decided, varied, it is contended, by new averments. It is stated in the amended petition that defendant 'guarantied' payment of the maximum stated in the policy; but there is nothing to sustain such an allegation; indeed, the whole tenor and scope of the policy is to the contrary. It is further averred that the defendant refused, as agreed, to make the stipulated assessments on policy-holders, whereby it became liable for the maximum amount, despite the positive terms of the contract; and liable also, in an action at law, regardless of the express agreement that resort should be had only to proceedings in equity to enforce assessments. In deciding the demurrer to the original petition, leave was given to the plaintiff to file a bill to compel an assessment; but, instead of filing a bill for that purpose, he has filed an amended petition at law, which leaves the case just as it was before, so far as legal propositions are involved. The contract of insurance was peculiar, as under its terms the respective persons insured were bound to contribute to death losses according to the shifting provisions mentioned; and the defendant bound itself merely to pay over what should be assessed and collected-- nothing more; and to make it certain and definite that its obligation was not to extend further, it was expressly agreed that it should be liable only to the stipulated proceedings in equity.
It is contended that the restrictive clause as to the remedy is void, and many cases are cited in support thereof, supposed to be analogous. That question was previously before this court and involved in its decision on the demurrer, wherein an adverse conclusion was reached; from which there in no reason to depart. Indeed, if the subject were driven to a full analysis it would appear that a different conclusion would involve many strange absurdities. The parties agreed one with the other, to many rules for determining their respective obligations and liabilities, dependent on the number of persons assured, the amounts for which they were respectively assured, etc., and to make sure as to the obligations of the defendant, and the means of enforcing the same in the only just, feasible, and equitable manner stipulated that only a suit in equity should...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Earnshaw v. Sun Mut. Aid Soc.
...were of the same character, and the actions were at law, but no objection was made to them on that ground. In Eggleston's Case, 18 F. 17, 19 F. 201, instrument contained a clause that "the only action maintainable upon this policy shall be to compel the association to levy the assessments h......
- Kropff v. Poth