The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-08-08

FoRFxrrRD.
WARRINGTON, August :, 1871
The Supreme Court the United States has rendered
the following decision:-
No. 81 The New York LILO Insurance Company
appellant, vs.. William Z. Sta,ham and Parmelia A.
Dudley, formerly sarmelia A Stathan. and other
cases. Appeal from the Circuit Court OF the United
Stacs for the Southern district OF Nssissippi-The
OF these cases Is bill in equity fled to
amount Of policy Of life insurance granted by the
defendants (now plaintiffs error In 1861 on the life
OF Dr. A. u. StatLan, OF Mississippi, from tho
proceeds Of certain funds belonging 10 the
defendants attached IN the hands Of their agent
ut Jackson, IN that State. Il appears from
the statements of the bill that the annual premiums
accrung on the policy were a regularly paid unuI the
breaking out Of the late civil war; but that in
queDcc Of that event the premium due on the Sth Of
December, 1861 was not paid; tho parties assured
being residents Of Mississippi and the defendants
issa $50
rhe second case Is an action at law brought in the
against the same defendants recover the
amount of policy Issued In 1859 on the life OF
Henry s. Seyms. the husband OF the plaintiff. In this
also the premiums had been paid until the break
ing war; when by thereof they ceased
10 be paid the plaintiff and her husband beng
dents OF Mississippi seyms died 10 May, 1872.
Tho third case a similar action at law, brought in
the court against tho Manhattan Life Insurance
Company OF New York to recover the amount Of pol
ICY issued by them In 1858 GU the life OF Z. L. Buck oil
Vicxsburg, Miss. the circumstances being eubslan-
italy the same as In the other cases
The policies ia Nil the cases wero In tho usual form
OF such instruments, declaring that the company,
consideration Of certain specified sums to them in hand
the assured ana OF IN nual premium OF the
same amount 10 be paid the sumo day month In
every year during the continuance OF the policy, did
the life OF tue party named IL specified amount
for the Of his natural life. Tue pocIcs contained
various conditions, upon the breach Of winch they
were be null aud void, ana among others The follow
Ing
That In case the raid shall not pay the said
premium on or before days hcrenbeiore
toned the payment thereof then and In every such
tbs shall be aUls TO the Of the
insured or In any part thereof and tins policy shall
aud determine.
Tbs Manhattan policy contained the additional
PROVISION tUat IN every where the policy should
cease or null and void all previous payments
made thereon should be forfeited 10 tue company
The pay oil the premiums In arrear was set
up in oar of the actions, The plaintiffs respectively
reied existence oi the war as an excuse, Offer
Ing W deduct the premiums In a<rear from the
amounts OF the policies The opinion Of the Court 10
IN substance ns foilows:-
payment Of an annual premium NY the assured with
condition 10 be VOID Don-payment IL not an insur
snce from year TO year. like common nre policy but
the premiums constitute an annuity, tho whole oil
winch Is the for the entire assurance Tor
lie, ana the CONDITION is condition subsequent max
ing 'old The policy by It's pon-porormance. But Inc
time oil pay ment such policies Is material and OF the
essence oi the contract and uiuro ~ pay involves an
absolute forfeiture which cannot Dc relieved against
III equity. II failure To pay the annual premium DC
RES IN winch The Insurance company aud the assured
respectively reside, which makes " unlawful Tor them
10 hou Intercourse the policy nevertheless forfeited
II the company insist on the condition but In such
case tc assured Is entitled TO the equitable value OF
the policy arising from the premiums actually paid.
This equitable value Is the difference between
oil new pocy and the present value OF the premiums
yet 10 be paid on the forfeited policy whom
the forfeiture occurred and may DO recovered
In "a action a. Law or sus In equity. The doc