Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1873-02-23
LIFE INSURANCE.
Failure to Pay Annual Premium and
Forfeiture of the Policy.

Failure to Pay Annual Premium and
Forfeiture of the Policy.
The Memphis Avalanche, Feb. 20, gives
the following extract from the charge Of
special Judge Estee 70 the jury in the case
Of McLennan VS.. the Equitable Life Insur-
ancs Society, in the First Circuit Court,
the jury, giving verdict for SIP, 127.46 in
favor of Mrs. McLennan, the plaintiff. The
extract shows fully the ground on which
the case was decided. The policy was for
$4,000, Special Judge Estes said:
"The plaintiff seeks to recover upon the
policy of insurance dated May 2, 1854, on
the life of John McLennan which has been
read before you. OF the execution and de-
livery of the policy, of the payment eff the
premiums keeping the policy in force up to
April 8, 1860, of the. death Of McLennan in
July 1869, and of the suficiency Of the proof
of death, etc, no question is made. The
defense is rested alone upon the ground
that the assured failed to pay THE annual
premium which was due on the 4th
of April, 1869, according to the
terms and conditions of the policy,
which failure it is commended was a
breach Of condition of the policy and
by its express terms operated forfeiture
thereof. This devolves upon me the duty
Of constituting the policy with reference to
this point, and by the Interpretation which
l submit you are to be guided in finding
your verdict. The clauses of the policy in
question are as follows: "In case the said
premiums shall not be paid on or before the
several days hereinafter mentioned for the
payment thereof, then, and in every such
case the said society shall not be liable for
the payment of the sum assured, or any
part thereof, and this policy shall cease and
determine" "And it is further agreed by
the within assured that In any case when
this policy shall cease and become to be
null or void all previous payments made
thereon shall be forfeited to the so
ciety." These clauses, if there were moth
ing more in the case, would have tie effect
insisted upon by the defendant, and the
plaintiff could not recover, If you should
find that she failed to pay the annual pre-
MUM for 1869; and further, that there was
no waiver by the company Of this ground
of forfeiture. But the charter Of the de-
PENDANT contains the following clause: "All
premiums should be payable in cash. In
case any policyholder shall omit to pay any
premium due from him TO the company, or
violate any other condition Of the policy of
insurance, the board of directors may for
felt bis policy and apply all previous pay
ments to the benefit of the company"
charge you that the parties are TO be held
in law as having entered into this contract
with reference to this clause of the
charter, and to be cognisant OF its provis-
ions so far as they affect the contract; that
the policy is to be construed as if said char
tiers were embodied therein, and that the
true meaning and construction of the clause
before quoted from the policy in connection
with the clause of the charter, is no. that
the contract should end and be forfeited
alone by virtue of the non-payment of
the premium on the designated days, but
that such non-payment should be e
forfeiture of the policy at the option of
the company, which it was required to
declare through its directors before the
forfeiture was operative. The burden
is upon the defendant to prove to your
satisfaction that the policy has been
forfeited, and to do this, for the reason
in question, it must prove not only that
the premium for 1869 was not paid, but
also that the directors of the company,
formally, or through other proper officers of
the company by them duly authorized,
elected to hold the policy forfeited, or de-
clared it atan enc, after the failure to pay the
premium, and bsfore the death of McLen-
man,"