The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1876-05-31
Circuit COur1 or the Waited Samaew
-SOuthern District
sias NRI~at@slPPI. R
MARY E. C,LLIER,

AMERICAN LIFE INs. Co.
Hon. A. R. Johnston, for PlaintiF-Hon
A. H. Handy, for Defendant.
After the testimony was closed sundry in
strnetious, in writing, were presented by
counsel on either side-which il is needless
to repeat hereafter due consideration OF
which, His Honor delivered the following
charge in addressing the jury.
This action is foI the recovery of the
amount of the policy with interest-read in
evidence.
To entitle the plaintiff to recover, it is
necessary that the State have established,
by proof, that III. c. Collier, upon whose
life the policy was issued, is dead and that
she has given the notice required by the
terms of the policy; and further, that up to
his death the premiums, as they became due,
have all been paid within the time specified,
that is, by noon on the 23d days of January,
April, July and October, of each year, or
upon failure of such payments that she has
a sufficient excuse for such failure.
That II. G. Collier is dead, and that the
notice required has been given is admitted.
Therefore the only facts to be determined
by you are: First, Was the premium paid
As stipulated, and, if not, has the plaintiff
produced sufficient reasons, by proof, for
such failure. She, by her declaration, al
leges she has made the payments and the
defendant, by its plea, says she has not 1t
is admitted that all the premiums were
paid and received up to the one falling due
July 23d, 1874.
This premium, it is admitted, was not
paid on that day. The excuse offered for
non-payment is, that it was directed to be
paid to Mr., Gillespie, tire agent at jackson,
and that plaintiff went on that day, and
within the proper time to his place of bust
ness, with the money to pay and for the pur-
pose OF paying this premium, but could not
find Mr.. Gillespie,
IF you are satisfied from the evidence that
she did so, then she will be excused from
making the payment within the time speei-
fled IN the contract, and the defendant can
not claim forfeiture Of the amount due
upon the policy, upon account of a failure
of payment within the prescribed time on
that day, as claimed by the defendant
And if the defendant claimed forfeiture of
the policy for such failure, and refused af-
forwards to receive the premiums and con-
tinue the policy without further conditions
then plaintiff was excused from making or
rendering any further payments, and will
be entitled to recover the amount of the
policy with interest. But if the plaintiff has
failed to show by the testimony that she
did on the 23d day of July, 1874, by noon of
that day, search for Gillespie, the agent,
ct his usual place of business in jackson,
with the means of paying, and with the
purpose of paying the premium then falling
due, ana that tho Unemployment was in con-
sequence OF her falling to find him there &C
cOrding to the terms of the contract, the pol
icy became forfeited, which the defendant
was entitled to claim and was not bound
afterwards to receive the premiums and
continue the policy and unless the proof
establishes the fact, that the defendant did
afterwards receive the premiums and agree
to continue the policy, your verdict should
be for the defendant
BY the terms Of the contract payment
could only be made to the Company at its
home office in Philadelphia, or to some agent
having the receipt of the defendant signed
by its proper officer with its corporate seal
But when payments had been made to an
agent, and no notice had been given to make
payment elsewhere, Il tender to pay to sucIl
agent witliina proper time, although the
agent was not authorized to receive it, would
avoid the forfeiture of the policy.
You are the sole judges of the weight to
be given to the evidence, and after consd
erlng and weighing all the eyi9esvs Qp the
part of both the plaintiff and defendant, will
the evidence requires. =
Should your verdict be for the plaipti& you
will allow interest at the rate Of aix per
cent: per aApNal aiter the expiration of sixty
days from the time notice was given of the
death of Hugh c. Collier, deducting the
amount of any premiums which may have
accrued and remain unpaid prior to the
death of said Collier
BY the conditions endorsed utson the back
of the policy sn0 of which the plaintiff
must be held TO have had notice. the agents
of the al pfpnIant ra rnbibitaI from,
ing any forfeiture of the policy, but the de-
PENDANT might make such waiver Oe
might ratify such waiyev, as an agent
might make, bat when such waiver is
claimed the burthen of proofs to establish
it is upon the policy holder, by the same
character and weights Of proof necessary to
establish any other fact.
Verdict fcF tho plaintiff returned for