The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-05-22
THE LAIRD LIFE INSURANCE.

Che Estate Of the Late Samuel Laird
and the assurances on His Life-A
Wide Field OF Litig alton for Lawyers
Important Decision by Judge Fancher.
There to be end to the tigatons growing
Of the insurance policies obtained by the late Samuel
Laird on his lite. Not long since published
tended report of suit brought against the New England
Lie Insurance Company, of Boston, in which raised
entirely question of law Two other suits have
been commenced against the Connecticut Mutual Life
Insurance Company, of Hartford Conn., involving like
wise and interesting legal points These actions
brought by Harrison E. Gawtry Charles soper
the proceeds Of two life insurance policies
ecuted by the latter company to Mr.. Laird who assigned
them in the month of January 1872 to his wife, Julia F.
and his daughter, Annie NJ. Laird. Mr. Laird died
the 10Th Of August 1872 On the Sd of October 1872 the
Slaughter assigned her claim under the policy IN her
ned S her claim to er father Mr. soper Both pa
u city. On the 18th day October william
Laird brought suit in Hartford Conn against the com
aaa ane II sa
sen@ss5
18th Of March, 1873 the plaintiffs commenced suit In this
s assnss the ss days 1
ns IN SUIT %a al s
parties offered to pay the money into Court and asked
o the funds SsswssH Company there
sss
sessus The s pains also ma moen asking
the causes be De placed snort
calendar These motions up for hearing yester-
day, and were argued At great length.
Mr.. Ransom one Of the counsel for the defendants,
argued that the company was restrained from paying in
the action brought by vredenburgh in Connecticut and
that il stood Indifferent between the litigants II
parties and in danger of being obliged TO pay
second time In Of suits brought against IL in
different jurisdictions by different He cted
several authorities, and earnestly commended that the
between themselves.
The pIantifs were represented by MT G. W. Cotteril!
who claimed that the vredenburgh suit was not COM
in Hartford until after the assignments
PLAINTIFF in New York. that the interpeader action in
Connecticut brought until five days the
of the plaintiffs action in this jursc-
ton that the defendants served in the action
against them here in which 1t claimed that the executor
and the wife daughter entitled to the proceeds
Of the policies; that by that the company
estopped from alleging that stood indifferent between
the parties and that the eectualy disposed Of
the nterpeader suit in the foreign jurisdiction. He
citizens TO foreign tribunal for the purpose of
enforcing their claims when they have initiated pro-
ceedings In that tribunal and have acknowledged
Its jurisdiction. He read afdavits to show that the
I'm his suit that he procured the injunction In that suit
and that the counsel plaintiff substituted
administrator in the nterpeader suit He argued that
the company having virtually tied itself up by nunc
and that the inerpleader suit could stand for that
alone. He criticised the bill OF int rpeader
the purpose Of showing that it defective in almost
every important particular He read aidavits showing
he was poor man he had right to procure policies.
Judge Fanchcr decided that the circumstances
Of the he would not compel citizens of this State
prosecute In Connecticut, and denied the motion
granted the motions tor the plaintiff to place the causes
the short calendar.