Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1876-10-24
IMPORTANT DECISION.
Opinion of the Supreme Court of tn e
United States Relative to Insur-
Rnee Policies Forfeited by Non.
Payment OF Annual Pre-
miums.

WASHINGTON, October % The fol-
lowing important opinions in several large
insurance cases were delivered by the SUI
preme court to-day: New York life Insurance
company Us. William Statham and ParmeIia,
ct al, formerly Statham, appeal from the cir
cult court OF the United Stat S, for the south
insurance company, plaintiff in error, US.
Charlotte Semmes, in error to the circuit
court of the United States for the southern
district of Mississippi; the Manhattan
err r, Us. X. T. Buck, executor of Charles L.
Buck deceased, in error to the circuit court OF
Mississippi. The points decided are as fol-
lows: a policy of life insurance stipulation
for the payment of an annual premium by
t6s vo5d S1reoo n GSnoi3n nof an 10 n Pe
surance from year to year like q COM
mon fire policy, but the premiums constitute
Grafton for entire assurance for life, and the
condition is a condition subsequently making
void the policy by its non-performancc; but
the time Of payment in such policies is mate:
rial and OF the essence of the contract, and
failure TO pay involves an absolute forfeiture,
which cannot be relieved against in equity II
failure TO pay the annual premium be caused
by the intervention OF war between the terri
tories in which the insurance company and
the assured res de, which makes it unlawful
for them to hold insurance. The policy Is
nevertheless forfeited If the company insist
on these conditions, but in such case the as
sured is entitled to the equitable value OF
Inc pOllcy arising from premiums actually
paid. This equitable value is the difference
between the cost of q new policy and present
value OF premiums yet to be paid on the for
feited policy when the forfeiture occurred
and may be recovered in equity. Tue doc
trine of revival Of contracts, suspended dur.
ing the war, is one based on considerations OF
equity and justice and cannot be invoked
TO revive contract which II
would be unjust or inequitable 10
revive, as where time is of essence OF con.
tract, or the parties cannot be made equity.
The rate of mortality is the fundamental
basis of assurance, and this is subveIted by
giving to the assured option 10 revive theiI
policies or not after they have been sus-
pended by war, since none but
the sick and dying would apply. 1t would be
pany. Mr.. Justice Bradley delivered the opin.
lon. The insured parties live in Mississippi
and were prevented from paying their premi.
ums in consequence of the war.
The above opinion was concurred in by Jus
tices Swayne, Miller, Dayis, Field and
Bradley. The other four members of the
court dlssented. Mr.. Chief Justice Waite
dissenting, said: al agree with the ma
jority of the court in the opinion thai
the decree and judgments in these casei
should be reversed, and that the failure x
pay the annual premiums as they matureC
putan end to the policies, Notwithstanding
the default was occasioned by tht
war, but 1 do not think that {
default even under such circumstances raised
an i'm piled promise by the company TO pay
the assured what bis policy was equally
worth at the time. l therefore dissent iron
that part OF the judgment Just announced
which Temands the causes for trial upon suci
promise"