Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 (1937)
U.S. Supreme Court, (March 01, 1937)
Docket number: 446
Permanent Link:
http://vlex.com/vid/20018440
Id. vLex: VLEX-20018440
Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)
Search in this document
Document options
RSSU.S. Supreme Court - Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171 <I>(per curiam)</I> (1977)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Notice: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 Provides that Dispositions Other Than Opinions or Orders Designated for Publication Are Not Precedential and Should Not Be Cited Except When Relevant Under the Doctrines of Law of the Case, Res Judicata, or Collateral Estoppel. Viejas Group of the Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians, Aka Viejas Band of Missions Indians, a Federally-Recognized Indian Tribe, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Virginia Hill, Angela Mesa, Donna Hill, He Shields Him Aguilar, Jenna Aguilar, Candice Albright, Brian Albright, Joshua Albright, Joselyn Albright, Defendants-Appellants., 946 F.2d 899 (9th Cir. 1991) Res Judicata, or Collateral Estoppel. Viejas Group of the Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians, Aka Viejas Band of Missions Indians, a Federally-Recognized Indian Tribe, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Virginia Hill, Angela Mesa, Donna Hill, He Shields Him Aguilar, Jenna Aguilar, Candice Albright, Brian Albright, Joshua Albright, Joselyn Albright, Defendants-Appellants.
U.S. Supreme Court - Spomer v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 514 (1974)
U.S. Supreme Court AETNA LIFE INS. CO. OF HARTFORD, CONN. V. HAWORTH , 300 U.S. 227 (1937)
300 U.S. 227 AETNA LIFE INS. CO. OF HARTFORD, CONN.,v. HAWORTH et al. * No. 446. Argued Feb. 4, 1937.Decided March 1, 1937. [ Aetna Life Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn. v. Haworth 300 U.S. 227 (1937) ][Page 300 U.S. 227 , 244] the insurer of liability in such a case and insistence by the insured that the repudiation was unjustified because of his disability, the insured would have 'such an interest in the preservation of the contracts that he might maintain a suit in equity to declare them still in being.' Burnet v. Wells, 289 U.S. 670, 680, 764; Cohen v. New York Life Insurance Co., 50 N.Y. 610, 624, 10 Am.Rep. 522; Fidelity National Bank & Trust Co. v. Swope, supra. But the character of the controversy and of the issue to be determined is essentially the same whether it is presented by the insured or by the insurer. Whether the District Court may entertain such a suit by the insurer, when the controversy as here is between citizens of different States or otherwise is within the range of the federal judicial power, is for the Congress to determine. It is the nature of the controversy, not the method of its presentation or the particular party who presents it, that is determinative. See Gully v. Interstate Natural Gas Co. (C.C.A.) 82 F. (2d) 145, 149; Travelers Insurance Co. v. Helmer (D.C.) 15 F.Supp. 355, 356; New York Life Insurance Co. v. London (D.C.) 15 F.Supp. 586, 589. We have no occasion to deal with questions that may arise in the progress of the cause, as the complaint has been dismissed in limine. Questions of burden of proof or mode of trial have not been considered by the courts below and are not before us. Our conclusion is that the complaint presented a controversy to which the judicial power extends and that authority to hear and determine it has been conferred upon the District Court by the Declaratory Judgment Act. The decree is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion. Reversed. Footnotes [Footnote *] Rehearing denied 300 U.S. 687, 81 L.Ed. Ä-. Footnote 1 The act provides:'(1) In cases of actual controversy * * * the courts of the United States shall have power upon petition, declaration, complaint, or other appropriate pleadings to declare rights and other legal relations of any interested party petitioning for such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be prayed, and such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree and be reviewable as such.'(2) Further relief based on a declaratory judgment or decree may be granted whenever necessary or proper. The application shall be by petition to a court having jurisdiction to grant the relief. If the application be deemed sufficient, the court shall, on reasonable notice, require any adverse party, whose rights have been adjudicated by the declaration, to show cause why further relief should not be granted forthwith.'(3) When a declaration of right or the granting of further relief based thereon shall involve the determination of issues of fact triable by a jury, such issues may be submitted to a jury in the form of interrogatories, with proper instructions by the court, whether a general verdict be required or not.'