Logo


Opinions Statutes Gpo Uploaded documents Links Lawyers Questions
Team    

   Search  




Citation: 315 U.S. 280 empty empty empty empty empty
Neutral citation: 1942 US 36 0 votes
Legal status: Precedential 20 visits
Jurisdiction: U.S. Supreme Court
Decision date: Monday, 16 February 1942
Tags related to the opinion:  no Tags
Citation: list of in going and out going citations to the present case
Citator: list of judicial treatments of the present case

Page 1, 315 U.S. 280, 280

U.S. Supreme Court

MACGREGOR v. STATE MUT. LIFE ASSUR. CO. OF WORCESTER MASS., 315 U.S. 280 (1942)

315 U.S. 280

MacGREGORv.

STATE MUT. LIFE ASSUR. CO. OF WORCESTER, MASS.

No. 179.

Argued Feb. 2-3, 1942.

Decided Feb. 16, 1942.

Rehearing Denied Mar. 16, 1942

See 315 U.S. 829, 62 S.Ct. 903, 86 L.Ed. --.

Page 2, 315 U.S. 280, 281

Mr. Wm. B. Giles, of Detroit, Mich., for petitioner.

Mr. Wm. Marshall Bullitt, of Louisville, Ky., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner brought this action to recover the premium of a life annuity contract purchased by his decedent. The suit was begun in a state court of Michigan, but was removed, because of diversity of citizenship, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Petitioner's claim is founded on the applicability of Michigan legislation regulating the conduct of insurance business in Michigan. The District Court held that 'the contract involved herein having been executed outside the State of Michigan, the statutes of the State of Michigan relied upon by the plaintiff are not applicable'. Accordingly judgment went against petitioner. This judgment was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, 6 Cir., 119 F.2d 148.

No decision of the Supreme Court of Michigan, or of any other court of that State, construing the relevant Michigan law has been brought to our attention. In the absence of such guidance, we shall leave undisturbed the interpretation placed upon purely local law by a Michigan federal judge of long experience and by three circuit judges whose circuit includes Michigan.

Affirmed.

delicius digg reddit stumbleupon google yahoo technorati slashdot

feedback

invite a friend

         


Provide a new tag:

Rate opinion importance:
Vote: full empty empty empty empty     
full full empty empty empty
full full full empty empty
full full full full empty
full full full full full

 Opinions last viewed:
   315 U.S. 280

 Personal comment:
 
 



© 2008 PreCYdent, Inc. - About PreCYdent - Advertise with us - F.A.Q. - How to cite us

All cases and statutes published on this site are in the Public Domain