The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1875-04-20
|Erain The New York World.]
rtFc.1nSrlrpncc In the Courts.

~
psyment, and an action was brought by
CHARLES w. ,IcfIrics, administrator, 10 the
Circuit Court for the Eastern District Of Mis-
souri,. TO recover the amount Of the policy.
The policy contained The following clauses ::
"This policy is issued by the company and
accepted by the insured aud the holder there
of on the following express conditions and
agreements. which are part Of this contract
OF insurance:
"First. That the statements and declara-
tons made in the application for this policy,
and on the faith Of which 1t is issued, are IN
all RESPECTS true, and without the suppression
of any fact relating to the health or circum-
stances of the In sircd affecting the interests
of said company.
"Sirth. That in case Of the violation of
the foregoing conditions, or any OF them, or
of the insured dying in or In consequence OF
duel. or in violation OF the laws Of the
United States, or of any nation, State, or pro-
vince, or hy reason Of intoXica'ion, this
policy shall become null and void"
The company pleaded that the insured
made untrue statements in the application,
aud therefore the policy was void. In an.
swcr to the question whether be was married
or single he said "singe,' whereas he was
married; and in answer to the question
whether any application had been made to
any other company he said no. whereas
application had been previously made to the
Mutual Life Insurance Company Of New
York, aud policy issued for $4,000.
The plaintiff demurred to this plea, and
the demurrer was overruled by the court.
From the judgment entered upon the demur-
rer an appeal WAS taken 10 the Supreme
Court of the United States, and has just been
decided.
Ia opposition to the judgment, it was con-
tended that the plea did not aver that the
false statements were material to the risk,
also that the false answers placed the appli.
cant in a less favorable light TO the company
than true answers would have done.
In other words, that "sngle" man was
less eligible for insurance than married
man. The Court 10y Mr. Justice HUNT, after
calling sttention TO the facts and the clauses
of the policy quoted above, held:
There is no place for the argument either
that the falee statement was not material to
the risk, or that it was positive advantage
to the company to be deceived by it.
1t is the distinct agreement Of The parties
that the company shall not be deceived to It's
injury or to its benefit. The right Of an in.
diydual or corporation to make an I'm wise
bargain is as complete as that t6make wise
barcan. The right to make contracts carries
with it the right to determine what Is pru-
dent and wise, what Is unwse and impru-
dent; and upon that point the Judgment Of
the individual is subject to that Of no other
tribunal.
"The case in hand affords good llustra-
ton OF this principle. The company deems
it wise and prudent that the applicant should
inform thcm truly whether be has made any
| other application to have his lite insured.
| So material does it deem this information
| that it stipulates that its liability shall de-
| pend upon the truth of the answer. The
! same is true of its Inquiry whether the party
/ is married or single. The company likes this
! estimate of its Importance. The applicant
agrees that it is thus important by accepting
| this test. 1t would be violation Of the legal
! rights of the company TO take from it its ac-
/ knowledged power thus to make its opinion
! the standard Of what is material, and to leave
! that point to the determination of jury.
| The jury may say, as the counsel here ar
CUES, that il is immaterial whether the ap-
picant answers truly if he answers one
way-namely, that he Is single, or that
be has not made an application
for insurance. Whether a question
is material depends upon the question itself.
The information received may be immaerial i;
but if under any circumstances it can pro-
duce reply which will influence the action
of the company the question cannot be
deemed immaterial. Insurance companies
sometimes insist that individuals largely in
sured upon their lives, who are embarrassed
in their affairs, resort to self-destruction, be-
ing willing 10 end a wretched existence if
they can thereby beStow comfort upon their
families. The juror would he ikely'to repu-
date such a theory on the ground that no,
thing Can compensate man for tue loss OF
bis life. The juror may be right and the
! company may be wrong; but the company
has expressly provided that It's judgment,
and not the judgment of the juror, shall gov
ern. It's right thus to contract, and the duty
Of the Court to give effect to such contracts,
cannot he denied
Several decisions which had been rendered
in the English courts were cited in support
Of these views. TIE Court further said:
MANY cases may be found which hold
that where false answers are made to inqui.
rics which do not reille to the risk the policy
is not necessarily avoided unless they iufla-
euccd the mind OF the company, and that
whether they are material is for tie determi.
nation OF the jury. But we know of no re.
spectacle authority which so holds where il
is expressly c0venanled as condition of liz
bifty that the statements and declarations
made in the application are true, and wher
the truth Of such statements forms the blsI:
of the contract"
Judgment of tue lower court affirmed.