Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract of indemnity contract Sorted by: recent Court: us supreme court Year: 1977 Page 1 of about 74 results (0.104 seconds)

Apr 26 1977 (FN)

United States Vs. Consumer Life Ins. Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Apr-26-1977

..... consent, once given, may not be rescinded except with the approval of the secretary or his delegate." "(b) definition of modified coinsurance contract." "for purposes of this section, the term 'modified coinsurance contract' means an indemnity reinsurance contract under the terms of which -- " "(1) a life insurance company (hereinafter referred to as 'the reinsurer') agrees to indemnify another ..... from the one presented here, is simply unintelligible if congress thought that 801 embodied an unvarying rule that reserves follow the risk. a conventional coinsurance contract is a particular form of indemnity reinsurance. [ footnote 28 ] the reinsurer agrees to reimburse the ceding company for a stated portion of obligations arising out of the covered policies. ..... 11). the difference in computation methods is not material for present purposes. [ footnote 7 ] each was an indemnity reinsurance treaty, obligating the reinsurer to reimburse the ceding company for its share of losses. such treaties constitute contracts between the companies only; the policyholders are not involved, and usually remain unaware that part or all of the ..... companies to invest the dollars, and, under the treaties, they kept all resulting investment income. nor were they mere "paymasters," as the government contends, for indemnity reinsurance of this type does not relieve the ceding company of its responsibility to policyholders. had the taxpayers become insolvent, the insurer still would have been obligated to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 09 1977 (FN)

Stencel Aero Engineering Corp. Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-09-1977

..... we must therefore consider the impact of these factors where, as here, the suit against the government is not brought by the serviceman himself, but by a third party seeking indemnity for any damages it may be required to pay the serviceman. clearly, the first factor considered in feres operates with equal force in this case. the relationship between the government ..... manufacture. stencel therefore claimed that, insofar as it was negligent at all, its negligence was passive, while the negligence of the united states was active. accordingly it prayed for indemnity as to any sums it would be required to pay to captain donham. [ footnote 3 ] the united states moved for summary judgment against donham, contending that he could ..... that the emergency eject system malfunctioned as a result of "the negligence and carelessness of the defendants individually and jointly." stencel then cross-claimed against the united states for indemnity, charging that any malfunction in the egress life support system used by donham was due to faulty specifications, requirements, and components provided by the united states or other ..... , missouri air national guard. [ footnote 2 ] there is no contractual relationship between the united states and stencel. stencel contracted with north american rockwell, the prime government contractor, to provide the f-100's pilot eject system. [ footnote 3 ] stencel's indemnity claim is based upon the law of missouri. see, e.g., feinstein v. edward livington & sons, inc., 457 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 03 1977 (SC)

Jahar Roy (Dead) Through L.Rs. and anr. Vs. Premji Bhimji Mansata and ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-03-1977

Reported in : AIR1977SC2439; (1977)4SCC562; [1978]1SCR770; 1978(10)LC19(SC)

..... not made for the benefit of the other contracting party who is the defendant to the action. he cannot insist on the indemnity or the offer of it; for it is no concern of his. all that he can require is that both the ..... two persons jointly then one of them cannot ordinarily require the other to join as plaintiff and cannot add him as a defendant, unless he offers him an indemnity against costs. this, however is a rule made for the protection of the joint contractor whom it is sought to add as plaintiff or defendant. it is ..... that even if it were held to be permissible for one joint promise to make the other a co-defendant, that would not be permissible without the tender of indemnity against costs, which was not done in this case. that rule finds a mention in halsbury's laws of england, third edition, at page 61 and appears ..... as the licence was given by the plaintiff and jitendra nath bose as joint promises of the property, the suit was not maintainable under section 45 of the contract act, hereinafter referred to as the act, by one of the joint promises without joining jitendra nath bose as a co-plaintiff.10. section 45 and the ..... persons, with whom he made his contract, are before the court. so long as they are both there, even if one is a defendant .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 06 1977 (SC)

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. the Central India Machinery Manufacturing Com ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-06-1977

Reported in : (1977)2SCC847; [1977]40STC246(SC)

..... of pre-emption. even so, much capital cannot be made out of the use of this loose expression in the indemnity bond, when the conditions embodied in the contract documents, read as a whole, clearly show that the property in the materials purchased by the company with the assistance ..... including steel or components will be reimbursed by the railway board.(underlining ours.)21. the material part of the indemnity bond, which was subsequently executed by the company in connection with the contract, provides : whereas under railway board's order no. 67/rs(i)/954/15 dated 23-12-1967 ..... not only collateral but also posterior in point of time to the contract. it will bear repetition that there is no conflict or inconsistency between standard condition 15 and ..... works, on production of a certificate to that effect from the concerned officer of the inspection and liaison organisation and on the firm furnishing necessary indemnity bond to the paying authority.note: 'on account' payment will be permissible only on steel procured according to joint director (iron & steel ..... intention of the contracting parties is primarily to be sought within the four corners of the documents containing the standard and special conditions of contract. if such intention is clearly discernible from these documents, it will not be proper to seek external aid from the stereotyped indemnity bond which is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 06 1977 (SC)

Union of India Vs. Central India Machinery Manufacturing Company Ltd. ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-06-1977

Reported in : (1977)6CTR(SC)220; 1977()WLN313

..... right of preemption. even so much capital cannot be made out of the use of this loose expression in the indemnity bond, when the conditions embodied in the contract documents read as a whole, clearly show that the property in the materials purchased by the company with the assistance ..... materials including steel or components will be reimbursed by the railway board.16. the material part of the indemnity bond which was subsequently executed by the company in connection with the contract, provides :'whereas under railway boards order no. 67/rs(i)/954/15 dated 23-12-1967, the ..... not only collateral but also posterior in point of time to the contract. it will bear repetition that there is no conflict or inconsistency between standard condition 15 and ..... , on production of a certificate to that effect from the concerned officer of the inspection and liaison organisation and on the firm furnishing necessary indemnity bond to the paying authority.note : on account payment will be permissible on steel procured according to joint director (iron & steel), calcutta ..... intention of the contracting parties is primarily to be sought within the four corners of the documents containing standard and special conditions of the contract. if such intention is clearly discernible from these documents, it will not be proper to seek external aid from the stereotyped indemnity bond which is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 11 1977 (FN)

Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Vs. Doyle

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-11-1977

..... difficulty disposing of, asserts that the $10,000 amount in controversy required by that section is not satisfied in this case. the leading case on this point is st. paul indemnity co. v. red cab co., 303 u. s. 283 (1938), which stated this test: "[t]he sum claimed by the plaintiff controls if the claim is apparently made in good ..... doyle sued petitioner mt. healthy board of education in the united states district court for the southern district of ohio. doyle claimed that the board's refusal to renew his contract in 1971 violated his rights under the first and fourteenth amendments to the united states constitution. after a bench trial, the district court held that doyle was entitled to reinstatement ..... award only compensatory damages, it was far from a "legal certainty" at the time of suit that respondent would not have been entitled to more than that amount. st. paul indemnity co. v. red cab co., 303 u. s. 283 , 303 u. s. 288 -289. pp. 429 u. s. 276 -277. 2. petitioner, in making its belated contention concerning 1983, failed ..... merits of respondent's claim under the first and fourteenth amendments. doyle was first employed by the board in 1966. he worked under one-year contracts for the first three years, and under a two-year contract from 1969 to 1971. in 1969, he was elected president of the teachers' association, in which position he worked to expand the subjects of direct .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 12 1977 (FN)

United Air Lines, Inc. Vs. Mcmann

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Dec-12-1977

..... appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. reversed and remanded. [ footnote 1 ] the plan paid retirement benefits pursuant to a group annuity contract between united and two life insurance companies. [ footnote 2 ] the same concession was made in this court. [ footnote 3 ] no brief amicus was filed on behalf of the department of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 06 1977 (FN)

Nashville Gas Co. Vs. Satty

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Dec-06-1977

..... reasoning, the disability plan in gilbert did not discriminate against pregnant employees or formerly pregnant employees while they were working for the company. if an employee, whether pregnant or nonpregnant, contracted the measles, he or she would receive disability benefits; moreover, an employee returning from maternity leave would also receive those benefits. on the other hand, pregnancy, or an illness occurring ..... . at 429 u. s. 129 n. 4. although i have the greatest difficulty with the court's holding in gilbert that it was permissible to refuse coverage for an illness contracted during maternity leave, i suppose this aspect of gilbert may be explained by the notion that any illness occurring at that time is treated as though it were attributable to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 06 1977 (FN)

New York Vs. Cathedral Academy

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Dec-06-1977

..... state statute. previously in that same litigation, we had page 434 u. s. 129 declared unconstitutional a pennsylvania statute authorizing payments to sectarian schools for specific secular services provided under contract with the state, and remanded the case to the trial court for entry of an appropriate decree. lemon v. kurtzman, 403 u. s. 602 ( lemon i ). on remand, the district .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 29 1977 (FN)

Commissioner Vs. Kowalski

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Nov-29-1977

..... allowable as a deduction under this chapter." 68a stat. 39. [ footnote 26 ] see technical amendments act of 1958, 3, 72 stat. 1607. [ footnote 27 ] "[t]he provisions of an employment contract . . . shall not be determinative of whether . . . meals . . . are intended as compensation." [ footnote 28 ] we do not decide today whether, notwithstanding 119, the "supper money" exclusion ..... are furnished on the business premises of the employer. . . . " "in determining whether meals . . . are furnished for the convenience of the employer, the provisions of an employment contract or of a state statute fixing terms of employment shall not be determinative of whether the meals or lodging are intended as compensation." [ footnote 3 ] references to "respondent" are to ..... meaning of the internal revenue code, since it appears from the legislative history of 119 that it was intended comprehensively to modify the prior law, both expanding and contracting the exclusion for meals previously provided, and therefore it must be construed as a replacement for the prior law, designed to end the confusion that had developed respecting ..... the business premises of the employer," and further provides that, "[in] determining whether meals are furnished . . . for the convenience of the employer, the provisions of an employment contract or of a state statute fixing terms of employment shall not be determinative of whether the meals . . . are intended as compensation." the tax court rejected both contentions, but .....

Tag this Judgment!


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