Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1876-10-24
important Supreme Court Decisios

important Supreme Court DectsfO0.
THE SOUTHERN LIFE INSURANCE CASES.
The life insurance cases from the south,
which have been pending for some time,
were decided yesterday by the United States
Supreme Court. These cases were
The New York Life Insurance Company,
appellant, VS.. VIM. c. Statham aud Psrme-
liza A. Dudley, formerly Parmelia A. Stat
ham, appeal from the circuit court OF the
United States for the southern district OF
Mississippi; the New York Life Insurance
Com papy, plaintiff In error, VS.. Charlotte g.
gyms, In error 10 the circuit court or the
United ,ates for the southern district of
Mississippi; the Manhattan Life Insurance
Company, plaintiff in error, VS.. X. 8. Buck,
executor OF Charles l. Buck. deceased, In
error to the circuit court OF The United States
for the southern district of Mississippi.
The poin tsdecided are as follows: A policy
OF life assurance which stipulates for the
payment OF an annual premium by the IS
suTed, with condition to be void on nou-
payment, Is not an insurance from year to
; ear, like common fire policy, but toe pre-
miUms constitute an annuity, the whole OF
which Is the consideration for the entire AS
surance for life, and the condition is con-
ditioD subsequent, making void the policy
by its non performance. But the time OF
payment in such policy Is material, and OF
to pay involves an absolute forfeiture, which
cannot be relieved against In equity.
IL failure TO pay the annual premium
be caused by the Intervention OF war be-
tween the territories in which the insurance
company and the assured respectively re-
side, which makes it unlawful for them to
hold intercourse, the policy is nevertheless
forfeited IL the company insist on the condi-
ton, but In such case the assured is entitled
to equitable value OF the policy arising from
premiums actually paid. This equitable
value is the difference between the cost of q
new policy and the present value OF the pre-
MUM yet TO be paid on the forfeited policy
when forfeiture occurred, and may be re-
covered in an action at law or suit In equity.
doctrine a.
pended during the war is one based on con-
sideratfons of equity and Justice and can
not be invoked to revive contract which 1t
would be unjust or inequitable to revive-as
where time Is OF the essence Of the contract
or parties cannot be made equal. The ave
rage rate OF mortality is the fundamental
verified by giving 10 the assured the option
10 revive their policies or not after they have
been suspended by war, (since none but
be unjnst to compel a revival against o the
company. Mr.. Justice Bradley delivered
the opinion Of the court.
The court made q very eiabor2ts review
and argument, presenting many points OF
interest: The following is the text OF their
conclusion:
1--WE are OF the opinion, therefore, first,
that as the companies elected TO insist pom
the condition in these cases the policies In
question must be REGARDED as eXLinguished
10y non payment OF premiums, though caused
by existence OF the war, that An action Will
lot be for the amount insured thereon. Sec
ondly, that such failure being caused
oy public war without fault OF the assured,
they are entitled eQuo ct bono to recover the
equitable value OF policies with interest from
close OF war. II results from these conclu
siODs that several judgments and DEGREES 10
cases before before US being in favor OF plain
Tins Tor the whole sum assured must be re
versed and the records remanded for further
proceedings.
1--WE perceive that the declarations In &C
ton at law contain no common or other
counts applicable to the Kind OF relief which,
according to our decision, plaintiffs are en-
titled to demand. But as the question is one
OF first impression, In W oich the parties are
necessarily somewhat In the dark with re.
gard TO their precise rights and remedies. we
think IL fair and just that they should be al
lowed to amend their pleadings. In the
equitable suit perhaps prayer for alternative
relief might be sufficient to sustain proper
decree, but nevertheless complainant should
De allowed 10 amend their bill. If they shall
be SO advised.
ain estimating the equitable value of a
policy no deduction snOuld be made from
The precise amount which calculations give,
voluntarily surrendered for the purpose of
discouragiDg such suTrenders, and the value
should be taken rs OF the day when the first
default occurred in payment OF premiums
by which the policy became forfeited. In
each case rates OF mortality and interest
used In the table OF the company will form a
basis of calculation. The decree in the equity
suit and the judgment in actions at Ia are
reversed, and the causes respectively re-
ms nded 10 be proceeded in according 70 law
and directi ms of this opinion"
The above opinion was concurred in by
Justices Swayne. Miller, Davis, Field and
Bradley. The other four members OF the
Mr.. Chief Justice Waite dissenting, said:
81 agree with the majority of The court In
the opinion that the decree and judgments
In these cases should be reversed and that
failure I'd pay the annual premiums as they
mature put an end to policies, not Withstand
ing default was occasioned by war; but do
not think that default, even under such
circumstances raises an i'm plied promise by
the company to pay the assured what bis
policy was eQuitaoly worth At the time. i
therefore dissent from that part OF the judg
ment just announced, which remands causes
for trial upon such a promise
Mr.. Justice Clifford dissenting, said:
where the parties TO an eXecutOry money
contract live in different countries, and the
governments of those countries become in
volyed in public war with each other, the
during the existence of the war, and revives
when peace ensues, and that rule, in my
judgment, Is as applicable to contract,
OF lie insurance as TO any other executory
contract, consequently am obliged TO dis
sent from the opinion and Judgment OF the
Mr., Justice Hunt concurred In this dis sent
Justice Strong, dissenting, said: while /
concur In several OF these Judgments and the
decree, dissent entirely from the opinion
nled by majority in the court. / think II
has never before been decided that surrender
value Of the policy can be recovered by an
assured unless there has been agreement be-
tween the parties for n surrender and GER
tainly IL has not before been decided that a
superVentng state OF war make Contract
between parties or raises an implication of
one"