New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1853-10-06

tar n be Copany 81 the very looali~ Of the parent
ore ard ruaer tie cOgnizance Of al It's ATTACHES On
The 18th. TIE assignee give the Office formal notice OF
rs death and OF his claim 70 receive the amount in
sred a. sssnee ST the expirstion Of tie ninety days
fxed By The terms Of the policies themselves for pay
r,eut On the 18th OF June-the time pedyed-he
applied for payment and ten days aer not having
ceeded in this application, be addressed letter asking
attention 10 his claim snd reasons why il not mt
T.e Acting President replied this letter the 25th
admitting the lOss and its proof and saying the money
would be ready Tor the legal claimant on the 9TH July
In the August term, having met with nothing bat eva
.7. preexts from the Office the assignee appealed TO
the Superior Court for the recovery of his clam The
answer 10 this appeal the part OF tie Office is
ainly curiosity of literature in the annals of efroR-
tery II first pretends not have received proof
death next that the deceased was guilty of false
hood in alleging that ne sound and thirdly
hat the Office had never admitted It's liability pay
the assignee the $4,000 It went say that II had
10 proof that the assignee had given equivalent for
the policies or had any claim for more than $500 Of the
amount insured thereby and that the executor adj
minstrator. or widow. if 70 be Gitimitey benefited
should be joined with him q party TO the suit. This
answer came into court authenticated by the oath Of
the Secretary He that the death Of his brother
was not proved to the Company. although he, its most
active Official was at his bedside in the hour OF death,
and one Of the retnue at bis funeral He swore that
bis brother scarcely yet cold in his shroll had been
guilty Of alsehOOd in expressing the belief that he was
healthy man, although bis father the father of both
q physician of responsibility and familiar from child
hood with the constitution OF bis son. certified posi-
-, 1ieaasa o.-iousiv fimsv
and indefnsible were these pretenses that the Office
very discreety abstanel the trial from affecting TO
offer any evidence in proof Of either The other sub
teruges and eyasOns-tO wit disbelief in the extent
Of the interest of the assignee and the demand that
others should be joined with him as parties to the suit
though little more decent colorado bubbles of
the law, are masks too transparent not to be seen
through St a glance. The Office knew il could not in
quire into the consideration of an assignment 1t
enough that the assignment authentic to bind their
promise TO pay the assignee The iehoe interest was
vested in the assignee and it would have been perfectly
ridiculous TO join the representatives of the assgnor in
prosecuting for claim in which he had no interest
himself Nothing be clearer than that represen-
tatives rights cannot exceed those of his principal 10
the trial before US. it must be acknowledged every
point disputed with professional pertinaeity
worthy better cause. and, though verdict was OBJ
tanned against the Office it hampered with e1-
ceptiOn and evasions prove determination not TO
concede an inch to the insured except at the point of
the bayonet.
The course pursued by the Insurance company
is far from giving confidence TO investments made
in this way for the benefs of the helpless Know
ing the skill OF the eminent counsel employed in the
deeuse under consideration it may again be sought TO
delay though it can hardly defeat, the triumph of jus
tice in tie final recovery Of the claim. The case to
which we refer is that of Milton ST John American
Mutual Life Insurance Company of New-Haven, Conn