The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-03-15
IMPORTANT LIFE INSURANCE
QUESTION.

The Late Samuel Lnird's Life Insurance
Poltcics-PaymentOf the Same Refused
and Appeal to the Courts to Enforce
Payment-Interesting Legal Proceed
ings and q Most Important Judicial
Decision.
Thousands of frequenters of Long Branch during
the watering place season well remember the late
Samuel Laird, at the time of his death proprietor
of two of the principal hotels at this famous place
of Summer resort. AS Is well known he died on
the 10th OF last August leaving surviving him his
widow and a daughter. In 1868 it appears that he
obtained policy of insurance his life OF $4,000
in the New England Mutual Life Insurance Com
pany, OF Boston During the next year he pro-
cured similar policy for a like amount from the
same company. In January, 1872, he had inter-
lineated in the policies "for the benefit of his
daughter, Ann NJ. Laird, and his wife, Julia +.
Laird" After his death the company refused to
pay the amount of the policies and the
result was suit to enforce payment.
Meantime, to allow the suit to be prosecuted here,
Messrs Harrison +. Gawtrey and Charles A. Soper
the latter the father OF Mrs. Laird, were made
assignees OF the benehciaries OF their claims under
the policies party to this suit was Mr.. Charles
A. Bennett, administrator de bonus NON of MIR
Laird Growing out OF the transaction there were,
or, rather, are, in fact two SUITS one brought by
Mr.. Bennett as administrator OF Mr.. Laird against
Harrison Il. Gawtrey, Ann M. Laird and the New
England Mutual Life Insurance Company, and the
A.
Soper Julia F. Lard and the New England Mutual
Life Insurance Company.
The answer by the insurance company to the
complaint claims simply that the policies were for
feitcd, account OF the alleged transfers. This
defence was regarded as untenabe by Mr.. G. W.
Cotter counsel for the benetciares under the
same and he moved the case on the short calen-
dar, and thereupon the plhntin brought the pres
ent suits against the insurance company ana re-
spective assignees OF the benenciaries. In Febru-
AIRY last an Injunction was obtained from
Judge Barrett, restraining Messrs. Gawtrey and
Soper as such assignees from prosecuting said
actions, and claiming on behalf OF the plaintln, as
administrator, that he was entitled to the proceeds
OF tue polces, on the ground that in January 1872
waen the policies were transferred by Mr.. Laird TO
his vile and daughter he was insolvent, therefore
that the proceeds should enure TO the benefit Of
his creditors. OF course in the natural course OF
events an order was granted to snow cause why
the injunction should rot be made permanent.
Yesterday was the return day for this order.
Tue case, as VIII be seen, Is one lAyovlng very
nice questions Jaw, to say nothing OF practice ON
tiie case Oeng called yesterday, before Judge Fan
cher, atSupreme court, Chambers there was quite
formidable array of counsel present representing
ue various cosMcung interests. Mr.. q. w. Cot
term appeared Tor the bene1ciaries under the
policies III opposition TO the motion TO continue
the Injunction Julian I. Davis for the ae ministra-
tor and District Attorney Phelps Tor the Insurance
company. Ar. Davis made but a brief argument,
claiming simply that Mr.. Laird was lpsoIyent and
that for this reason the creditors were clearly en-
titled to the proceeds OF the policies
Mr.. Cotterill INDUCED IN a most elaborate and
rs the result proved a most conclusive argument
In opposition to the motion TO continue the in
junction He claimed that on the papers 40 was
evident that Mr.. Laird not insolvent at the
time he transferred the policies IN question TO his
vile and daughter; and that even i he was that
policies but, II anything. the amount OF the
premiums only. lie further urged that, II appear
Ing That Mcssrs. Gawtrey ana soper, the asslgnees
OF the policies, were solvent, the only remedy, II
any, was 70 sue them for a recovery OIL the amount
OF the premiums advanced.
Mr.. faelps stated That he represented the IN