The Hawaiian gazette., 1873-02-05

IMPORTANT DEclsIoS.-The case OF A. w.
Howard v The Continental Insurance Company
Of New York, was tried before jury in the FIT
teenth Distinct Court yesterday. The suit is one
Of great interest to all parties having anything to
do with life insurance. The policy sued on was
upon the life of B. c. Howard. who died in the
year 1870. 1t was assigned during the lifetime
Of the assured to W. A. Howard. by the consent
Of the insurance company. 1t was five year en-
dowme1t policy Tor 5000. By the original
agreement the assured was to pay two-thirds Of
the sum OF $500 iri-yearly Before his death there
bad been paid on the policy S24OO. In the year
of his death he had paid one OF the three pay
ments which he was required to make for that
year the other two were unpaid but the year
bad not expired. Upon his decease the company
refused TO pay the amount of the policy on the
ground that the assured had not kept up his pay
ments in accordance with his agreement.
Judge Dwinelles construction of the terms of
the policy was decisive of the case, and the Jury
rendered from their seats verdict in conformity
to the instructions Of the Court. The Judge read
the policy and heard the arguments of counsel as
to the construction to be put upon it, and then
said he would construe it only one way. He
should hold he said, that where the assured was
given permission to pay his annual premium in
two. three or more installments, the company ex-
tended TO him credit which made it responsible
in case OF his death that in such cases the CON-
pany would not be relieved OF liability unless and
until the assured permitted the whole year to
pass by without paying tie yearly premium.
Where the death occurs before the year elapses,
the company is liable for the full amount of the
policy, less the premium due for that year.
The counsel for defendant said that he believed
all life insurance policies were worded as The one
sued on in this case; the matter in Issue in this
action was of great importanee-;oo important to
be finally settled short Of the Supreme Court.
Therefore, be said the case would be taken 10
that tribunal.
Another interesting question then challenged
attention. namely: Was the Interest TO which
the plaintiff was entitled under the law to be CON-
puted by the California or New York rate? II
BY the former it would be ten per cent. De
PENDANTS counsel contended that the law of the
place where the policy was issued controlled the
question OF interest. Plaintiffs counsel concurred
in this, but claimed that the policy was issued
here. as the company was doing business here
and the policy was delivered here, and the con-
tract made with him.
Judge Dwinelle said this point must be settled
by reference to the written policy.
Defendants counsel urged that the policy
showed on its face that it was issued in New
York.
Plaintiffs counsel called attention to the words
Not to take effect until coantersigned by the
San Francisco agent or words to that effect,
and insisted that this explicitly brought the mat
ter under the operation of the California law.
Judge Dwinelle also took this view. Accord
ingly interest was computed at ten per cent. per
annum The real amount of the policy was
S3263 Is, it being understood and agreed be-
tween the parties that there should be considered
to be standing loan of 81. $50 so thereon. which
sum should be deducted from the expressed
amount in case of death.
Judgment was accordingly entered up in favor
Of the plaintiff for the sum Of S3263 Is, together
with 1892 O5 interest, besides costs. all payable
in currency.-S F. Bulletin.