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.
OLIVER v. NORTHWESTERN MUT. LIFE INS. CO., 1933 — 66 F.2d 560 · caselaw · US
Corporations
OLIVER v. NORTHWESTERN MUT. LIFE INS. CO.
66 F.2d 560·United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·1933
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
OLIVER v. NORTHWESTERN MUT. LIFE INS. CO.
No. 5012.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Aug. 3, 1933.
A. E. Kountz and C. A. Fry, both of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.
Maynard Teall, P. K. Motheral, and Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee.
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.]
BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.
In this case it appears the defendant insured the lives of officers of a solvent family corporation. With the knowledge and consent of its stockholders, the premiums on these policies were paid for a number of years by the company as part compensation for the services of its insured officers. No debts of present creditors of the company existed during these transactions. Subsequently the company became insolvent, and its receiver, holding such premiums had been unlawfully paid from the assets of the company, now seeks to recover them from the insurance company. If the company had itself sued the latter, it is clear such action would not lie, and the company’s receiver has no higher rights than it.
In an able and exhaustive opinion, citing sustaining authorities, the trial judge demonstrated his warrant for giving binding instructions for the defendant. In view of the adequate discussion of the case in such opinion, we refrain from repetition, and limit ourselves to affirming the ease thereon.