The New York herald., 1869-04-09
> SUPERIOR COURT-GENsaAl Term.
Important Insurance Case-DecisiOn.
Before Judge McCunn.

DclOTt JulEt MCCuuu.
Elizabeth Baker Us. The Union LIE Insurance Conn
pany and Arother.-JudgeSM SMcCunn yesterday de-
livered the following opinion in the above case:-
This Is an action to recover the sum OF ten thou
sand dollars, being the amount Of policy on the
life OF the husband OF the plaIntlr. The facts
follows-In December, 1854, Mr.. Baker, the husband
Of the plaintiff insured his life for and on account OF
his wife in the company OF the defendants for ten
thousand dollars and gave his notes for the pre-
miums, which notes were accepted and received
by the company and were receipted on the policy
as much cash. The policy was then
taken by Baker and given to his wife
and there being evidence before the court that
sne had any knowledge that her husband had given
his notes for the premium on the policy Instead OF
cash. One OF the notes became due and was NOT
paid at maturity, and Baker promised repeatedly
take the same up, the company induging HIM as 10
time. Baker finally died before the note was paid.
The defendants answer and say that by reason of
certain printed memorandum they cali 1t agree
mentl, placed on the margin OF the policy wherein
II says that If any promissory notes given under said
policy are no. paid at maturity the poiIcy shall
come vod-that they are not bound In law to pay,
bst on the contrary are released from all their obi
cations in that respect. After careful OF the
law, looking at all the facts as they stand the
case, are clearly OF opinion that the plaintiff II
entitled to recover. We hold that where the wlfe's
interest IN her husbands life IL insured. and the
husbands notes are received and receipted AZ cash
10 the wife or the person TO be benefited by the
policy, 1t Is receipt In payment cash, and the
receipt Is part OF the agreement. TINS is the rule
Insurance Company t25 Barbour, 1901, ana In that
case the facts are not near 50 clear and strong as
they are IN the case under consideration. In 'lls
case the wife, for whom the policy was effected, dld
not know but that her husband had paid the cash
for her premiums they were receipted cash
her policy by the company, and for aught we can
tell, II she had known the money had not been
paid she might have advanced the pre-
MUM MUM ne herself SELL. But even II the plaintiff had
fact that they were given instead OF money the
premiun the policy under such clause IA not void
ma nnfC
able only at the election OF the company Instead
however Of electiug to avoid the policy the company
assented TO the delay In payment and we're expect.
ing IRON day to day, the proceeds OF the note from
Baker, the husband and they held the other notes
not yet due or earned and up to his death had taken
and there In no dispute that payment OF the notes
az maturity was waived and as no agreement was
thereafter made with the plann TO change her
rights, the company was, and is, Liable TO
her, ana can only look to the collections
that q knowledge on the part OF the
company OF the nonpayment Of the note IL a notice
Of the breach, and an extension Of the time there.
There is another view Of the case which must TO
| my mind conclude the defendants-I mean the view
the premium IN cash by their own acts In giving the
receipt for cash. The rule OF law clear that where
one, by his own words conduct, another to
believe the existence OF certain state OF things and
induces him or her 70 act on that belief the party
| dong Is concluded from averring or proving a
diflerent state or things as existing at the time he
made such representations. In legal parlance
termed estoppel This was the rule held In the Queens
| bench In the case or Packard v. sears t6 Adol.
| and Ell, 469. so also In the case OF Freeman W..
Coot u Exch r., 654) Baron Park holds that where
| party gives receipt or writing and knows at the
time he Is giving 10 that the same is untrue In this
casel he gives with the understanding that II will
be acted upon and used against him as II IL were
| true. II IN this case the company did not intend
that these notes should be received as cash &C.
| count Of the premiums OF this womans policy why
did they not say so In their receipt II would
anly have been as easy for them TO say notes TO
say cash. But they intended the notes TO be received
as cash; they were received as such, and they must
be strictly held TO that construction. Indeed, there
never was case where In the doctrine OF estoppel
can so completely apply as IN this case. EstoppeI,
as applied In such case as this is not made appli
| cable upon the ground Of wiful misrepresentation
| or fraud In making the admission or declaration,
but upon the ground that IL Will be fraud TO show
that II Is untrue TO the prejudice OF third party,
| and OF one who has acted upon the faith Of the
statement In this case the plaintiff saw the receipt
upon her policy. and saw that theylanguage OF that
| receipt said the premiums were received In
| cash, aud she acted upon that statement.
and We cannot allow thm compsnJ si's'