The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1876-10-24
BY telegraph
ASSOCIATED PRESS REPORT
TO THE DAILY LN4!ELLIGEN0ER
Important Opinions on Life In
surance by the Supreme Court
of the United States.


WASHINGTON, October 23.-The fol
lowing important opinions in several lifC
insurance cases were delivered by tht
Supreme Court to-day:
New York Life Insurance Company
appellant, vs.. William G. Stalham and
Patmelia A. Dudley, formerly Parmelia
A. stalham, appealed from the Circuit
Court OF the United States for the South.
ern District Of Mississippi.
The New York Life Insurance Com
pany, plaintiff in error, vs.. Charlotte
Zeyms, in error, to the Circuit Court oi
the United States for the Southern Dis.
trict Of Mississippi.
The Manhattan Life Insurance Com.
pany, plaintiff in error, vs. r. S. Buck,
executor OF Charles L. Buck, deceased,
in error, to the Circuit Court Of the
United States for the Southern District
Of Mississippi.
The points decided arc as follows:
A policy Of life insurance stipulating
for the payment OF an annual premium
by assured with condition to be void on
non.payment, is not an insurance from
year to year Ikea common fire policy,
but premiums constitute an annuity the
whole OF which IL q consideration for the
entire assurance for life and the condi-
tions is n condition subsequently making
void the policy by It's non.performance,
but the time Of payment in such policies
is material and OF the essence Of the con-
tract and failure TO pay involves and ab-
solute forfeiture, which cannot be re-
lieved against inequity. II the failure to
pay the annual premium be caused by
the intervention Of war between lhe ter
ritories in which the insurance company
and assured respectively reside, which
makes it unlawful for them to hold inter
course, the policy is nevertheless forfeit
ell, If the company insist on the eondi-
tions, but in such case the assured is en-.
titled to the equitable value OF the policy
arising from premiums actually paid.
This equitable value is the difference
between the cost Of new policy and the
present value OF the premiums yet to be
paid on forfeited policy when the for
ieiture occurred occurred and may be
recovered in equity. The doctrine Of
revival OF contracts suspended during the
war is based on considerations Of equity
and justice and cannot be be invoked TO
revive contract, which it would
be unjust or unequitable to revive, as
where time is the essence OF the contract
the parties can not be made equal. The
average rate Of mortality is funda-
mental basis Of life assurance, and as this
is subverted by giving to the assured the
option 10 revive their policies or not
alter they have been suspended by war,
since none but the sick and dying would
apply, it would be unjust to compel
revival against the company.
Mr.. Justice Bradley delivered the
opinion Of the Court.
Tho above opinion was copcurred in
by Justices Swayne, Miller, Davis, Field
and Brady, the other four members OF
the court dissented.
Mr.. Chief Justice Waite dissenting
said, 1 agree with the majority Of the
court in the opinion that the decree
in these cases should be reversed,
and that the failure to pay the annual
premiums as they matured put an end
10 the policies, Notwithstanding the de-
fault was caused by the war. But do
not think that default even under such
raises an implied promise
by company to pay the assured what
his policy was equitaGly worth at the
time. Therefore l dissent from that part
Of the Judgment just announced which
remands the causes for trial upon such
promise.
The insured parties lived in Mississippi
and were prevented from paying their
premiums in consequence OF the war.