The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-07-26
SUIT FOR LIFE POLICY.
nisl Of Mrs. Phinney's Claim
for $4,000 Begins.
/ QUESTION or FORFEITURE.
- Mutual Life Says the Policy Wa
surrendered Winding Up the
Denny Hotel Case.

me Mutual Life Insurance COMPANY
If New York. is making q hard effort To
1e.eat the claim OF 3drS. Nellie pnlnnsv
a H9y.00 insurance on the lie Of her
k.s5and. Guy c. Pnia1sy. The case came
- before Judge Hanford yesterday morn
rs. and 10 creating Q great deal OF inter-
II, the court room being crowded near
h ~ day. Mrs. Phinney was present
6ardsomsIy dressed Ia black. accom-
rarit6 by relatives and friends
The story OF the case is that phfrnev
Il $50 took out policy for 100000. and
sid the frat annual premium, amounf-
- 10 $377o The records show thaf =.
az not pay anything for the years iss1-2
ara died In 1890, before the fourth pre-
mlsm became due. The contention OF the
r6.niin In the first pace Is that ali the
crtmsams were paid. and that Il Il not
seetssary 10 prove that they paid more
than one, because the company failed 10
ssrye on fhinnsy the statutory notice
required by the laws Of New York before
Il had the power to forfeit the contracI-
Tas company CONTENDS that the policy
ua6 not only forfeited, but was surr~n.
lersd BY Phinney after forfeiture.
Xr. StrucEick. 10 his opening statement
= the case TO the jury. stated that the
company proposed TO prove the above
otateusaf, and would further show that
RhiEney was unable to pay the secona
Dremiun. and asked the agent In th.a
city to accept his note for IL, which VAS
refused. and that believing the poi,ov
VOID. he let the agent have it for Solicit
iag purposes.
Ms FhInney testified that she was ex-
eeEtrlx OF her husbands estate. and had
made the proofs of death, and that tha
company had denied the liability on the
erorLd that the policy was a for1a.led
contract. On ton sae tesft-
te4 that Ar. Phinaey had repeatedly
Informed her that the policy was stisi
% force, and That Just prior to his death
be had spoken OF this policy, together
viii others. as being In force. and direct
ed what she should do with the process
Al the conclusion OF this Testimony
AID ~ the bssiaalng OF the afternao,
session Mr.. Strudwick. OF counsel for
tas company. made motion for nom
suit The grounds were. FIRST. that the
complaint contained an allegation thar
FaiLney had performed the cond,,lon.
Of DIS policy. and no proof was offered
IS to the payments OF premilms of
lssi-z and second, that the action could
not be maintained without payment or
tender on the part Of the executrtx Of
TIE premiums due.
The motion was denied. the judge ex-
pressing some doubts as to the iirsr ouss-
Don, but stating that he had previously
decided the second question in the Nixon
case.
A. b. Forbes. OF San Francisco. Pacific
coast agent of the company, was the first
witness on the part OF the company.
he testified as to the manner ii, which
the business OF the agency was transact
ID IN regard to the payment Of premiums.
and stated that to his knowledge Phin-
ney only paid one premium.
r. l.. Stinson, agent of the company
from isss to 1893. testified that he solicit
Cd Fhlnney for policy for $l00. 900. and
shortly afterward wrote for him that
amount. He said Phinnsy paid him the
first premium and rendered him notes in
payment of the second. but he refused,
because the company only accepted cash.
and he was not we'll enough fixed nnan-
eally to accept tho notes. He had several
conversations with Phinney about the
payment OF the premiums, but had not
received any money for the second. lie
asked Phinney for the policies after they
became delinquent TO use for soliciting
purposes, and he gave them to MIN.
On eross-examination Stinson could not
show the amount OF money Phinney
paid him on the date he delivered the
policy. The question drew out the state
ment that on the day the policy was de-
livered Phinney had released to Stsnson
TWO mortgages. amounting to $500, or
about 800 IN excess Of the first prem
ium. and that Stinson had taken Phin-
ney's note ard received In cash about
81 100 and four lots with consideration
OF $500
The case will continue today, and viii
probably be given to the jury some time
tomorrow. Stratton, Lewis a Gilman
and r. c. Strudwick are counsel for the
company ard S. wsrhurton and Muir
ray q Christian, of Tacoma. and Andrew
r. Burleigh are counsel for Mrs. Phin-
ney.