Skip to content


Macgregor Vs. State Mut. Life Assur. Co. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number315 U.S. 280
AppellantMacgregor
RespondentState Mut. Life Assur. Co.
Excerpt:
.....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.....
Judgment:
MacGregor v. State Mut. Life Assur. Co. - 315 U.S. 280 (1942)
U.S. Supreme Court MacGregor v. State Mut. Life Assur. Co., 315 U.S. 280 (1942)

MacGregor v. State Mutual Life Assurance Co.

No. 179

Argued February 2, 3, 1942

Decided February 16, 1942

315 U.S. 280

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

Syllabus

In the absence of any relevant decision by the state courts, this Court accepts in this cause an interpretation of local law by the Federal District Court in the State and by three Circuit Judges whose circuit includes it. P. 315 U. S. 281 .

119 F.2d 148, affirmed.

Certiorari, 314 U.S. 591, to review the affirmance of a judgment against the petitioner in a suit to recover the amount of a premium paid on an annuity contract.

Page 315 U. S. 281

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.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //