The New York herald., 1876-10-25
LIFE INSURANCE.

WHAT TEE COMPANIES SAT- ABOUT THE So
PEEME COURT DEcIsIoN-THE oyEIcxRs or
THE EQUITABLE, MANHATTAN, NEW YoEK
AND MUTUAL ExPRzss THEIR OPINIONS.
The very important decision Of the United States
Supreme Court published in tho HERALD yesterday,
10 life policies held by Souhernors, attracted profound
attention in insurance circles Many persons sup
posed that the immense interests involved by the
decision would plunge the companies into endless
OF litigation; that all, or nearly all of the original
Southern policy holders would commence suit 10 at
lenst the surrender value OF their poces but
IL will be by the interviews held with officers
of the companies who were concerned in the recent
decision that such apprehension is not shared BY
them. In the OF the Now York Iiie Insurance
Company II seems that there by the
heirs OF DR.. A. d. Statham OF Mississippi.
the amount OF policy OF life granted By the
company In 1851, and funds belonging them
had been attached In Jackson II appears that tho
annual premiums nccruing on the policy had all
been regularly paid until tho breaking out OF tho
latc civil war, but that In consequence the
premium duo December 8, 1861, was not paid DR..
statnam died in 1862 Joined In this suit wcro two
similar ones which Charlotte seyms, whose husband,
Henry s. seyms, died In 1862, and one c. i. Buck,
against tho Manhattan Life Insurance Company, tho
issues al. being nearly tho The Judges decided
that .the payment such policies is material and OF
the essence Of the contract and failure to pay involves
nm absolute forfeiture which cannot be relieved against
In equity Continuing. tho judge asscnted to the
company's right to consider the policies apsed, but
made the important reservation that In such tho
assured entitled to the equitable valne OF tho
policy arising from the premiums actually paid. In
defining this value most important decision
made-viz, that the equitable value is the difference
between the cost of policy and the present value
of premiums yet TO bc paid the forfeited policy
when the forfeiture occurred and be recovered
action at SUIT in equity. The doctrine OF tho
revival OF contracts suspended during the ono
based considerations OF equity and justice and
cannot be invoked 20 revvo contract which 1t would
DO unjust or incquitabo to revyc--as where time IA
Of the contract tho parties cannot
made equal, The average rate Of mortality is tho
fundamental basis OF life assurance, ard this
vertcd by giving to tho assured the option to revive
their policies not AFTER they have been suspended
by war, since none but tho sc> and dying would
apply, II would be unjust to compel revival against
Mr. J. 4. Halsey, tho secretary of tho Manhattan
Life Insurance Company, told the writer yesterday
what they desired, and or which they had been con-
tending. Their counsel, Mr. Pitman, had always
maintained that all the policies had absolutely lapscd
the equity only being considered lar policies red
catcu premiums paid up 10 tho time Of the lapse
is concerned. But therc was ono important point
upon which there scci~ed some difference in opinion,
but upon which tner counsel clear in his advice,
and that was that only policies which claims ha
been in suit can be considcred
ouTIAwED.
This is the full scope OF the dccrec-absoluto
Limitation Of demands 10 the lew that have been
before the Practically that company have been
settling and did compromise many cases since tho war
the very basis OF this dcclslon Now tho Of
Buck, who died before the war; his was OF hun
drcds involving materially tho same points II
could have made the law ourselves II Is precisely
should have enacted II. All the cases were fairly
presented; the litigation against the New York Mutual
Lille almost identical with our own, but those Of
this company were reached hrst To give you some
dea OF tho losses paid by together with the growth
such business lite insurance, the following table