Rose Weiner v. the Prudential Insurance Company of America

• Decision Date: 04 October 1938
• Citation: 1 A.2d 708,110 Vt. 22
• Parties: ROSE WEINER ET AL. v. THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

1 A.2d 708

110 Vt. 22

ROSE WEINER ET AL. v. THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA

Supreme Court of Vermont

October 4, 1938

May Term, 1938.

1. Jurisdiction Retained by Court First Acquiring It---2. Essentials of Identity to Defeat Suit in Another Court---3. Right of Second Court to Adjudicate upon Closely Connected Matters---4. Status of Action on and Suit to Cancel Insurance Policy---5. Facts Established in Suit to Cancel Available in Action on Policy---6. Judicial Notice in Action at Law of Proceedings in Equity Suit---7. Action to Be Continued on Remand Until Determination of Prior Suit in Equity.

1. Generally speaking, in cases of concurrent jurisdiction court first acquiring jurisdiction will retain it to the end to exclusion of other tribunals.

2. Where pendency of suit in one court is relied on to defeat a second suit in another court of concurrent jurisdiction identity of parties, of case made, and of relief sought should be such that if first suit had been decided it could be pleaded in bar as a former adjudication.

3. A court, having obtained jurisdiction of subject-matter of suit and of parties before it, does not thereby exclude all other courts from right to adjudicate upon other matters having very close connection with those before first court, and, in some instances, requiring decision of same questions exactly.

4. Though they might ultimately lead to same result action at law on life insurance policy, to which plea that policy was procured by fraud is interposed, and suit in equity to cancel such policy on ground of fraud are not for same cause of action and same relief is not sought in each so that prior commencement of latter does not deprive court in which former is brought of jurisdiction thereof, though parties are the same.

5. In suit in equity to cancel life insurance policy on ground of fraud certain facts might be proved which, through estoppel by verdict, might be available in action at law on the policy as having been conclusively established, provided that they were properly presented and that decree in chancery case had become final.

6. Supreme Court took judicial notice that hearing on merits in suit in equity to cancel life insurance policy was held facts were found, decree filed and exceptions taken to findings and decree while review was pending of question whether county court had jurisdiction of action at law on the policy brought after filing of chancery suit.

7. Action at law on life insurance policy, to which defense was interposed that policy was procured by fraud, was to be continued on remand from Supreme Court until disposition was made of exceptions to findings and decree in suit in equity, begun prior to commencement of action at law, to cancel the policy on ground of fraud.

ACTION OF CONTRACT on life insurance policy. Plea, that the policy was procured by fraud and deceit. The defendant also filed objections to the jurisdiction alleging that the court was without jurisdiction because a suit to cancel the policy in question as having been procured by fraud had previously been commenced in the court of chancery for determination of the rights of the same parties to the same subject-matter in controversy. Hearing on the objections to the jurisdiction in vacation after the December Term, 1937, Caledonia County, before Jeffords, J., presiding judge, with the consent of both parties. Objections to the jurisdiction denied and overruled. The defendant excepted. The opinion states the case.

Judgment affirmed and cause remanded.

Theriault and Hunt for the defendant.

J. Rolf Searles, Arthur L. Graves and William S. Burrage, Jr., for the plaintiffs.

Present: MOULTON, SHERBURNE, BUTTLES and STURTEVANT, JJ.

OPINION

BUTTLES

By a policy issued as of March 13, 1935, the defendant insured the life of Morris A. Weiner for the sum of five thousand dollars. This policy contained a two year incontestability clause. After two annual premiums on said policy had been paid, the insured died on September 14, 1936 and this action of contract was commenced on October 6, 1937 by the beneficiaries of said policy, the administratrix of the estate of the insured, and the guardian of the minor beneficiary for the purpose of recovering the amount of the insurance stipulated in said policy. Meantime, on February 27, 1937, the defendant herein had brought its bill of complaint against the plaintiffs herein to the court of chancery in Caledonia County praying for the cancellation of said policy on the ground of alleged fraud and deceit of the insured in procuring the policy from said defendant. To the action at law the defendant insurance company filed its answer, setting up as its defense thereto the same fraud and deceit which it had previously alleged in its bill of complaint in the chancery suit as the basis of its prayer for cancellation of said policy of insurance. At the same time it challenged the jurisdiction of the court to proceed in the law case by filing its motion to dismiss, the title of which motion was later amended to read: "Objections to Jurisdiction." Therein said defendant alleged in substance that a suit having been commenced previously in the court of chancery for determination of the rights of the same parties with respect to the same subject-matter in controversy, the law court was thereby prevented from assuming jurisdiction over a law action between the same parties with respect, it was claimed, to the same subject-matter. After hearing by the presiding judge the defendant's objections to the jurisdiction were denied and overruled, and on exceptions to this action by the court the defendant comes to this Court in accordance with the provisions of section 2072 of the Public Laws. The general rule is well established in Vermont and elsewhere that in cases of concurrent jurisdiction the court first acquiring jurisdiction will retain it to the end to the exclusion of other tribunals. Whittier v. McFarland, 79 Vt. 365, 369, 65 A. 81; Bank of Bellows Falls v. Rutland and Burlington R. R. Co., 28 Vt. 470, 477; Miner's Exrx. v. Shanasy et al., 92 Vt. 110, 111, 102 A. 480; 14 Am. Jur. 435, par....