Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1878-05-29
D BAxTER'S OPINION
or Life Insurance Policies and Rights
Of Citizens for RellefADecisien
in the KnickerbOcker Case.

Judge Baxter, of the United States
Circuit Court, gave an interesting and
novel decision in the case of Frank P
Walker VS.. Kuickerbocker Life Insur-
ance Company. Probably there is not
another judge on the bench who would
dare give expression to his ideas in utter
disregard Of the conventional apology
that so often, and to the great misfortune
Of public interests, characterizs the wear
ers Of the ermine, who are supposed to be
learned in the law" The complainant
in this case 6led a bill to compel the
Knickerbocker Life Insurance Company
to issue to him a paid.up policy or pay
him the equitable value OF a life insur-
ance policy on which he had failed to
pay the premium. Defendant ~conteDded
that complainant had not complied with
the conditions of the policy, and there
fore wal no. entitled to anything. Judge
Baxter, in announcing bis decision,
said that the conditions seemed to pre-.
clude said Smith one half the privileges
or rights of a citizen, and be was of the
opinion that such a policy was full Of
pitfalls and snares for the unwary,
However, there was no allegation in the
bill that any undue advantage had been
taken of complainant, nor such other
allegations as would sustain the bill He
regretted exceedingly he could not grant
the relief asked for in the bill, and while
his opinion, as q man, was that such
policies we're mere swindles, still our PEG
pie would be humbugged and ensnared
by them. The result was, as in this case,
ovor FIVE thousand dollars had been with.
drawn without any consideration frem
the State Of Arkansas, in the interior o.
the country, aud transferred to q grea.
commercial center, New York city
Judge Baxter referred to the unwisI
policy OF this species Of investmeu
and the detriment resulting t,
public interests by the grea
drainage upon certain sections o
abe country to the advantage o
any particular locality. he was bound
however, as a judge, to admins
ter the law, and therefore would be com
PEELED to sustain the demurrer Of The
defendant. On motion of complainant
counsel thirty days time was granted il
which to amend the bill, 10 order tia.
complainant might, if be could, lay some
ground upon which his bill would be sus
tanned or the relief prayed be granted
According to the statement Of the condi
tons imposed the complainant had t
pay a certain premium annually, snC
within a specified time, and unless 81
paid, the amount previously paid was t
be forfeited and the policy to be cancelled
II, however, application for payment BIZ
made bsfore forfeiture Of the policy The
company was to issue a paid up policy
or give complainant al equitable sur
render value of policy. Judge BaxieI
thought there we're some peculiar fes
lures in this sort of policies that would
give food for reflection. For instance
complainant had agreed toannually pay
and for ten successive years, the slu
of about $3.50 in order to secur,
the payment Of ten thousand dol
lars to his representatives at his death
This amount annually paid, Judge BAx
ter calculated, if computed at ten pc
cent. interest and compounded, woulC
amount in ten years to much over $2l,
900, the sum complainant would have to
pay for the privilege Of having $1,000
the amount of the policy secured. And
' even at six per cent if calculated in tn.
same way, the sum to be paid for thi
would fall but little below $40. GEO. TIT
decision will doubtless attract no it'll
attention and elicit very general CON
ment.