Commonwealth ex rel. Kirkpatrick v. American Life Insurance
Commonwealth ex rel. Kirkpatrick v. American Life Insurance
Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the common pleas which was affirmed by this court in the case of Miller’s Appeal, 162 Pa. 586, disposes of the appellant’s contention in the present case. The appellant has no lien upon the assets of the company prior to its dissolution, and it was certainly not the intention of this court to give her one when we decided that she was entitled to a return of the policy for $6,000, or when we adjudged that the “ defendant company ” pay to the plaintiff the sum of six thousand dollars with interest from October 4, 1889. Riegel, Appellant, v. American Life Ins. Co., 153 Pa. 134. The appellant is simply the holder of a policy, for $6,000 without preference, and is entitled only to a dividend of the assets in the hands of the receiver along with all other creditors of the same class.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Commonwealth ex rel. W. S. Kirkpatrick, Attorney General v. American Life Insurance Company. Appeal of E. Theresa Riegel, Administratrix
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Insurance — Life insurance — Insolvency—Dissolution. Claims against a dissolved stock life insurance company, founded upon death losses occurring prior to the dissolution, are not entitled to priority of payment, as against claims resting upon imlicies running at the date of dissolution. Miller’s Appeal, 162 Pa. 586, followed. When in Riegel v. American Life Insurance Company, 153 Pa. 134, the Supreme Court directed that the “defendant company” should pay to plaintiff the sum of six thousand dollars with interest, it was not intended to give her a lien upon the assets of the company, but simply that she was entitled to her policy for that amount without preference, and to receive only a dividend of the assets of the company in the hands of the receiver along with all other creditors of the same class.