Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1882-03-28

of September, On which day premium was
due which Mr.. Smith failed to pay. having
been stricken down with apoplexy. He re-
mained unconscious for several days, and on
the morning Of the 25th, one Faust, to whom
he had previously made an assignment tor the
benefit OF his creditors, lett Allentown to go
to the company's Office to pay the premium,
but Smith died while he was on the way. and
the company. having learned that fact, refused
to receive the premium, and declared the
policy forfeited.
"The company subsequently brought sui
on the mortgage, and the judge. before whom
the case was tried, sustaining the forfeiture OF
the policy, refused to allow 1t as set-of. An
application was taken to the supreme court,
which, in an opinion by Chief Justice Shars-
wood. says 1t is a principal now too well set
tied to be controvcrted, that when party
contracts 20 do anything which Goes not abso-
lutely require him to do 1t in person. sickness
does not excuse, tor he ought to have pro-
vided tor 1t in the contract itself. This pTin-
ciple applies to the contract OF insurance. We
are OF opinion that there was no error commit
ted by the court below, and the judgment Is,
therefore, aftrmed.'"
That Ia the law in such a case, and the com
pany which profited by it can Justly plead the
law In its own Justification. But, certainly, 1t
does not seem like equity, and the above case
Is in striking contrast with the following one
in which not only equity, but wi e business
generosity is the principal motive. The full
particulars OF 1t ere reproduced by the Potts.
town Ledger, OF the 18th instant, which says ::
1--WE were yesterday shown by Mr.. Robert
Holmes the check of The Mutual Life Insur.
ance Company CT New York in payment OF
the full amount due under policies on the life
OF the late e. O. Swinehart.
"The payment OF q s., COD claim by com.
pany which is paying claims at the rate Of
5000 per day, having paid out for death
claims and endowmcnts during the past year
over 5000 Oo0-of which s6ss,000 was paid in
the state OF Pennsylvania alOnc-is not an
event ordinarily calling for special .Lention:
but the circumstances attending this case and
the recent stringent decisions of the United
States Supreme Court In reference to the non.
payment of premiums. warrant, in this in
stance, particular notice.
"As Is known to many or our readers. Mr.
Swinehart died on the 25th OF December last.
after an illness of some four weeks. His rela-
tives being ignorant or the fact that he was in.
surci In The Mutual Life, and he himself be.
ing, by the nature OF his illness, prevented
from giving any attention to business affairs,
the premiums due December 22d were not
paid. Notices of these premiums had been
sent In due course by the agent, but remained
al Nj. SwiDehart's place OF business unopened
until tie day of his death. On discovering
dilcEN lucSc hOIiccS, u'S TeWltLSu
the amount of the premium to the Reading
Office, with the statement that his son had
died Under the rules OF the company the
agent was, OF course, unable to accept this
payment, but proofs OF death were prepared
and forwarded with the statement OF the case
to the home oficc OF the company. without
any hesitation the company accepted the
proofs furnished, and notified the agent that
the claim would be paid in due course
HIl..V inls. fIf llx. i..h hA laAHn Il
chief Justice declared to be go we'll settled, was
laid down in a case where still another lite in
surancc company (the New York life), de-
clined to pay policy which ha lapsed under
almost similar circumstances, viz: The huS-
band being sick and unable to attend to the
payment OF tho premium, ana his wife having
no knowledge OF the insurance until after his
death. This company having declined to pay
the amount OF the policy, the wife appealed TO
the law, and after long litigation, ending De-
cember, 1881, the court Of last resort decided
that the provision OF the policy in reference
to the payment OF premiums was absolute,
"and equity could not relieve against d fail
ure caused by the alleged sickness OF the in
sured and ignorance OF the existence of the
policy by his wife.
What The Mutual Life Insurance Company
did in the case of Its policyhOlder. Mr.. Swine
hart, 1t was right to do. 1t was not bound by
law to pay the policy, but every fairminded
man will say that in equity and good con-
science 1t was bound to tio SO, and every such
man will honor It tor doing 1t. In having
done It The Mutual Life has not only justified
the exalted confidence and respect in which 1t
Is held by the whole country, but it has set an
example which, II followed by other rcsDectn-
BILE companies. would increase the general
confidence In life insurance itself. But while
other companies decline to follow the noble
example of The Mutual Lite it IS certain to
continue what 1t has long been, viz the most
prosperous, the most trusted and most beneti-
cent of life insurance cOmpanles-Phitade'-
pki0 Ledger.