Miles v. Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance

Citations

• 147 U.S. 177
• 13 S. Ct. 275
• 37 L. Ed. 128
• 1893 U.S. LEXIS 2154

Syllabus

<p>A policy of life insurance was issued, insuring the life of a husband for th$ benefit of his wife, for $5000, for life, a premium named to be paid annually, and, if not paid, the policy to cease. It was made at the instance of the husband, he paid with his own money all the premiums which were paid, being nine, the policy remained, always in his possession, and the wife had nothing to do with it. Before the tenth premium became due, the husband advised the company that he could not pay that premium, and wished to take out a paid-up policy, under a provision therefor. • The company advised him not to do so but to have so much of the $5000 released as would enable him, with the sum allowed for such release, to pay what would be due as a premium on the remainder. He agreed to do. so, and presented to the company what purported to be a receipt signed by his wife for $82.39, as a consideration for the release of $700 of the $5000, the $82.39 being applied towards the premium on the’$4300 policy. Thereupon the husband .received a policy for $4300 insurance on his life for his wife’s benefit, bearing the same pumber as the $5000 policy, with a less annual premium. A year later he advised the company that he could not pay the premium on the $4300 policy, and took a paid-up policy for $1495 on Ms life for the benefit of his wife, having first given the company what purported to be a receipt signed by Ms wife for $583.24 as a consideration for all claims on account of “ policy No.” so and so, released, the $583.24 being applied in payment of a premium on a participating paid-up policy for $1195. The wife’s, name on both receipts was written by the husband without her assent. In a suit on the $5000 policy brought by the wife, the company set up the non-payment of any premium on it after the date of the $4300 policy. Held, that that was á good defence, and that there was nothing to justify the failure to pay the premiums.</p> <p>The cases of Manhattan Life Ins. Go. v. Smith,