TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Harris v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States

LaVon HARRIS v. The EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES and Robert Smyth

Harris v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y of the United States, 147 F. Supp. 478 (S.D. Iowa 1957)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court, S.D. Iowa · Federal District Courts
Decided
January 9, 1957
Docket
No. 3-730
Judges
Reeves
Citations
147 F. Supp. 4781957 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4251

Opinion of the Court — Reeves

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

REEVES, District Judge.

It is alleged in the complaint that the defendants, The Equitable Life Assurance Society and one Robert Smyth, conspired to bring about a breach of the contract of insurance of the defendant Assurance Society. The cause was brought in the state court and removed to this court on the ground of a separable controversy.

Able counsel for the plaintiff has endeavored to engraft upon a suit for breach of contract, a conspiracy. In the case of Sewell v. J. E. Crosbie, Inc., 127 F.2d 599 , loc. cit. 602, the Court of Appeals, this Circuit, covered the identical point as follows:

“(5) Charges that a party to a contract colluded or conspired with others in connection with its breach will not serve to convert what is essentially a separable cause of action for a breach of contract into a joint cause of action for tort.”

Other cases might be collated and cited in support of the proposition that a contracting party cannot conspire to bring about a breach of his contract. Moreover, it is fundamental that there can be no conspiracy to procure a breach of Contract resulting in damage in the absence of false or fraudulent representations, threats, violence, intimidation, or coercion. According to' the complaint nothing like this occurred in the current action.

It follows that the suit is one in contract to which the co-defendant Smyth is not a party and that the motion to remand should be and will be overruled.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1968: 11971: 11983: 11994: 12002: 119682026peak 1968 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. American Mutual Liability Insurance v. Flintkote Co.565 F. Supp. 843 (S.D.N.Y. 1983)
  2. Griebel v. JI Case Credit Corporation285 F. Supp. 621 (D. Minnesota 1968)
  3. Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd.869 P.2d 454 (Cal. 1994)
  4. Logixx Automation, Inc. v. Lawrence Michels Family Trust56 P.3d 1224 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002)
  5. Lyon Ford, Inc. v. Ford Marketing Corporation337 F. Supp. 691 (E.D.N.Y. 1971)

Most recent

  1. Logixx Automation, Inc. v. Lawrence Michels Family Trust56 P.3d 1224 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002)
  2. Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd.869 P.2d 454 (Cal. 1994)
  3. American Mutual Liability Insurance v. Flintkote Co.565 F. Supp. 843 (S.D.N.Y. 1983)
  4. Lyon Ford, Inc. v. Ford Marketing Corporation337 F. Supp. 691 (E.D.N.Y. 1971)
  5. Griebel v. JI Case Credit Corporation285 F. Supp. 621 (D. Minnesota 1968)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Sewell v. J. E. Crosbie, Inc., 127 F.2d 599 (8th Cir. 1942) 6

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list