Manhattan Life Ins. Co. of NY v. Cohen
Citations
- 234 U.S. 123
- 34 S. Ct. 874
- 58 L. Ed. 1245
- 1914 U.S. LEXIS 1134
Syllabus
<p>AFederal question may not be imported intoa record for the first time by way of assignmentof errormadeforthepurposeof review bythiscourt.</p> <p>As a general rule, for the purpose of review by this court, rights under the full faith and credit clause of the Federal Constitution are required to be expressly set up and claimed in the court below.</p> <p>Denial of full faith and credit to the statutes of another State cannot be made the basis of review by this court where it appears that the court below reached the same result that plaintiff contended for on grounds wholly independent of the Federal question and sufficient to sustain its action.</p> <p>This court has already decided that state statutes, such as that of Texas imposing a 12% penalty and an attorney’s fee, for damages for delay in payment of proper claims, are not unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment as depriving life insurance companies of their property without due process of law or as denying them the equal protection of the law.</p> <p>A payment made by a life insurance company to one of two claimants on receiving a bond of indemnity, held, under the circumstances of ' this case, not to have been the payment of a stakeholder seeking to discharge his duty but of a person espousing the cause of one claimant against the other and thereby subjecting himself to the legal consequences arising from his action.</p> <p>This court cannot review on its merits a case which it must dismiss for want of jurisdiction.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- conceding that the Supreme Court would have jurisdiction to review a case in which “the record [left] no doubt that rights under the full faith and credit clause were essentially involved and were necessarily passed upon”
- conceding that the Supreme Court would have jurisdiction to review a case in which “the record [left] no doubt that rights under the full faith and credit clause were essentially involved and were necessarily passed upon”
- conceding that the Supreme Court would have jurisdiction to review a case in which “the record [left] no doubt that rights under the full faith and credit clause were essentially involved and were necessarily passed upon”
- duty to review “when it appears that such a question was actually considered and decided”
- duty to review \when it appears that such a question was actually considered and decided\
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: White, After Making the Foregoing Statement
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.