New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-12-15
THE COURTS.
ANTAGONIsrTc INSURANCE. 1,vvs


Martha p. Hamilton some time aoo bao.,
an action IN the Supreme Court against the ,ro,'S
Docker Lie Insurance Company to recover sos 600
pooy Issued by 10 the life OF her husband IN Jan,.
1919 MI Hamilton died in Alabama In 1879 Tba
company get the defence that In February 1872 th
ot"te Oh Alabama passed law hostile to certain esy
porations organized under the laws of hia State
which was included the defendant and that the s,a,s
OF hew-York In June, 1881, passed law prohibiting ~,
courts from entertaining Jurisdiction OF actions On
policies OF Insurance in the insured persona ded in
certain Stntes The effect Of this law OF 1881 WA 70 IA
feat the plaintiffs right Of recovery To tbis aesenca
the plaintiff put In demurrer which was argued befor
Judge Arnoux, who yesterday handed down a declslon
sustaining the demurrer In his opinion he says:
"The proposition OF the counsel for the defend,n, 4.
sufficiently startling arrest the attention OF every
son interested in any policy OF life insurance effected
with any company organized under the laws OF this
state tits briefly that no beneficiary under such mol
ICY In case the insured should die in Alabama
other States collect amount OF The pocv in ,h
courts OfNew-York." The injustice OF such a law wa,
illustrated by the present case. Mr. Hamilton
took out policy OF insurance in the de.
PENDANT company, paid the premiums on II
regularly during HIS life and committed thu
indscreton Of dyingin Alabama The companv refusea
10 pay his widow the policy which the offender mad
t taken out Tor the benefit Of herself and child The
widow being Obliged TO bring suit TO enforce the paw
ment or the policy is TO be thrown court on the
gfounu tnat the states or New York and Alabama
era years after the policy taken out passed soma
mutually hostile aws in regard to life Insurance COM
Panles. The New-York law provided that
IN case any person upon whose lifo a
policy or Insurance had been taken ont
in company organized under the laws OF this state
should die IN any State where laws shall be enacted
discriminating ag inst NewYork life insurance com.
panies no suit could be maintained the policy in Ina
New York courts. Judge Arnoux in commenting on this
law holds that 1t IS OF the OF penal law ana
must be construed strictly IL therefore only apply
to states wncn after it's passage should passed hos
Tile laws oil the tho Legislature
The law was intended not actof retaliation for past
hostile acts OF sister States but as warning against
future hostile acts any other construction OF the law
were adopted the result would be that the innocent
would be punished for the offences the guilty More
the law would be in the nature OF an er post fao
law, whoh Is prohibited by the general principles OF he
laws OF all civilized peoples Aside from these cOnsid
eratons the law could have operation on contracts
entered into before It's enactment 1t would violate the
constitutional provision that law shall impair the
validity OF contracts Judge Arnoux concludes his
opinion with the declaration that the act of 1881 cau
not viewed from whatever to the case before
him.