Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
MacGREGOR, EXECUTOR, v. STATE MUTUAL LIFE ASSURANCE CO., 1942 — 315 U.S. 280 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
MacGREGOR, EXECUTOR, v. STATE MUTUAL LIFE ASSURANCE CO.
315 U.S. 28086 L. Ed. 846·Supreme Court of the United States·1942
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
MacGREGOR, EXECUTOR, v. STATE MUTUAL LIFE ASSURANCE CO.
No. 179.
Argued February 2, 3, 1942.
Decided February 16, 1942.
Mr. William B. Giles for petitioner.
Mr. Wm. Marshall Bullitt for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
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. 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.