The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1876-07-03
NEW LIFE INSURANCE Law.
Interesting Decision In Richard W. Mcade's
Sutt-Ltbcrai Allowance TO Counsel.


Sutt-Itbcrai Allowance TO Counsel.
novel case, OF importance aud interest
10 every holder Of a life insurance policy In the
United states, was decided last week by Judge
Calvin 4. Pratt, In Kings county. Several years
AGO Commander Richard w. Meade OF the United
States navy, Influenced by clause In the pros.
pectus OF the 81. Louis Mutual Life Insurance
Company, Offering special Inducements to Off.
cers Of the army and navy, entered into a con-
tract with that company by which he agreed to
pay certain srm for a term OF thirty yelra. and
tho company bound itself to pay him ID, the end
OF that time another certain SUN, unless mean
timo he should die, In which event his widow
was immediately to receive tho fun amount.
Many Others in the rmy ana navy IN dc similar
contracts. and were known distlnctively as tho
army and navy class. After he ana they had paid
inmiu' tni f n OF a. ,nr 81,
the Mound CITY Life Insurance Comp nv, and
notiled the policy holders TO pay premiums
thereafter TO that concern. To this Meade OO-
Jrcted. and demanded n paid no policy from the
original COMPANY. Meanvh iie the old company
wa transformed into me ST Louis Life, with
out the Mutual, hy which COMMANDER Meade
was Offered a paid up policy lie declined TO
take II. and heg'n a suit which, aft several
years Of litigation. Is ended.
By IN order If Judge Pratt, all policy holders
similarly situated with Commander Meade are
permitted 10 Join 10 the expense OF the test
case, and to benefit nv the decision. The coun-
eel that acted for Meade represented eighteen
litigation. TIE result in Mesde's case was a
judgment In MS favor for $500. Tie other .ses
can probably he compromised for $2,0J0. Mean
time thtee respectable referees awarded 10
council an allowance OF $4,000 for the cost and
labor OF establishing now NV point In hfc IN
surance litigation. These counsel bind them.
selves, however, not to take any moro eases Of
the KIND agslnst the COMPANY, although now
grind out counsollora at the rate OF 800 or more
"a year IL h difficult to see.
The complaint IN the action set forth, among
things. Mound
COMPANY. to which the ~ Louis Mutual Lifo
haG trans -rred its asa fs, was not responsible
concern nnd that reinsurance In that company
was therefore undesirable. ana that 1t WAS a
fraud uoon the policy holders In the Mutual Life,
Insurance.
AT tho trial the plaintiff was represented by
Messrs Robert Sewel and James +. Pierce
Vouminous evidence was taken. Judge Pratt
on deciding the case wrote an opinion, of whlcn
the following are the main points:
The 81. Louis Mutual llfc In urance Company IL a
with power "a make te contrac, sued on. The poici
Ia,d 70 March 1901, or g his wldlw 4 ihe olinuG
Snnusiy r tSty year, Il IS Or vied tast
to pay anS premium when due shall forfeit the ,icy
made the insured cease 10 psy prylnlums sucn defsnt
commn reduced 10 srh proportional part a. tSe
sum OF tue annual premiums pad shi bear 10 the
Tue brenn wer pa,a Tor three ycars. The fourth
account Of H. ansier Of ee st. LSu,. nqa, pI' qa
the Mound City Lite. The premium OF insuranc, on
~ as med II The contract CONTINUES tae day
Say or conn S'' any T9 t Ken ns et cS nsS
ff lohtci Sh1H groo gediis 6y ths athhon ~ Uier
IaH eq aa s 10 b. T III ~ /. re ssu a,s r
CURED oy Nv oo,h IN ,iss 'url ami New u rk Whetn
OF Missouri one IA immatcrlll IN THIS respect In
81 Keeping nvc, ed this fund Seh ~ r M tbn u ~
sery.s. q 81 Lous Mutall Life Insurance Company
e rsssry ps- po lev and ON s al IL To
sirs 70 tle relnsnrine company THIS Ia violation OF
lH nf Ia
pay II TO- and trIs me chance Of the company being
not require MIN To do 30 Tae psrty in efsa,t
must bear the consequenoes Of the dcfAut and noi tic
The law ecd to b. tna whenever one 6" party To-
he thereby gives g. the Other party tho on
u9n TO reselnd the crtre contract.
tae scon Of Ne Old company and tne plann elecIns
mens he has made nd a amer ~ reroESr pseG inc pay
lary situated Win hun VINO within reisonaDr time
plaian enutlgd 70 Judgment Tor ths amount Of pre-
nt ,b PAM and interest All her policy holders
claim thr ocnent Of the docree shOald have mIiAr 70.
be appointed the parties eaa agree mat x oe
paced a. Interest
NEGOTIATIONS were then entered into between
the insurance company anu the plaintiff policy
hoders' Last week Messrs. BE well & Pierce, Tor
the plaintiff, moyed for an order dliectin1 the
funds OF The ST. Louis Lie Insurance Company
under a receiver, To sell nfteen bonds Of the
ethte OF Mlssoull, or such part of them "a might
be necessary % pay them the SUN of kl2,OU.
Robert Sewell Esq., made the apple ltiOn, aud
Informed the Court that after the original judg-
mont was entered the defendant pro-
posed an Arrangement whereby other o,ses,
eighteen In all, which were also In his hands, as
counsel, might TO settled under the finding OF
the Court. This was agreed to, and arbitritors
were appointed, who together chose Peter b.
Oiney, bsq., Of this city, as the tnlrd to deter.
nine the amount To be paid. The other urDi-
traitors were Levi A. Fuller, Esq,, and L. Smead
ESQ. Messrs, Fuller and Oinoy reported In Ia
yor OF Tue S2,OlO for the policy holders, aud $40
w Tor ousts, counsel fees aud disburso menls
the motion.