Mutual Life Insurance v. Phinney
Citations
- 178 U.S. 327
- 20 S. Ct. 906
- 44 L. Ed. 1088
- 1900 U.S. LEXIS 1681
Syllabus
<p>Upon the showing made by the Court of Appeals, it is clear that that court had jurisdiction, and should have proceeded to dispose of this case on its merits, instead of dismissing it for want of jurisdiction.</p> <p>The plaintiff in error is a corporation, organized under the laws of the State of New-York, and doing business as life insurers in the city of New York. It had an-agent in the State, of Washington, to whom Phinney, a resident in that State applied for a policy on his life. The application stated that it was made subject to the charter of the company and the laws of New York. A policy was issued which provided that on its maturing payment was to be made at the home office of the company in New York, and on its receipt Phinney paid the first premium. The policy provided that he should pay a like premium for twenty years, if he should live so long, and that the policy should become void by non-payment of the premium, with a forfeiture of previous payments. Phinney failed to make the next annual payment. Then he surrendered the policy to the local agent. He died without having made that payment, or the next one which matured before his death. His widow was appointed his executrix. She presented to the company a claim for the amount of the insurance under the policy. It was rejected. This suit was thereupon brought. In its' answer the company set up that the contract was not to be taken as a contract under the laws of the State of New York, but under the laws of the State of Washington, and the company asked this instruction, which the court declined to give. “ If you find from the evidence in this case that the said Guy C. Phinney stated to the representative of the defendant in the State of Washington that he could not pay the premium falling due September 24, 1891, and that he did not pay nor tender the same, and that he thereafter surrendered said policy to the defendant’s representative, they mutually believing and understanding that the same was of n
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that insurance agent’s statement that policy had lapsed was one of law, and insured was equally responsible for knowing insurance law as agent
- “[T]he said premium or interest then due shall be paid to the company or to a duly appointed agent or other person authorized to collect such premium.... ”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Brewer, Peokham
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.