The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1895-10-21
orryrox OF THE COURT, BY FEEAE. j


In January. I-g2. the defendant,
being unable 10 meet the Assess meut-
payable upon the benefit certificates
II himself and hi- wifi a. com pauiOu-
OF the American Legion OF Honor,
delivered the certificates To the plain
tiff a. security for advances 10 be
made by the plaintiff 10 pay such
assessments, the advances 20 bear in
tere-t AT the rate 81 nine per cent. pc:
auuum. This action Of a--ump-it l.
brought 10 recover the advances -
made from February /, 1892, % Jan
nary 3, 1895, amounting 10 SlOl4.UU
and SIP II interest.
The defendant claimed that he was
not personally liable, that ue did not
promise TO reimburse the plaintiff,
but that the latter wa- To pay tue
assessments, If Al all, solely on hi
own re-pOus bility, and look for reim-
bur-emeut only 10 the moneys pay
able on the certificates upon the death
Of the defendant or his wife re-pec
lively, the certificates being somewhat
Of the nature Of life insurance policies.
He also CLAIM ed that, whatever may
have been the agreement prior To sep
TENDER, 1894, he was III DO way liable
Tor pay meuts made thereafter, as ne
had al that time Tepudiated all re-pOn-
sibilIty i'm the matter.
The Jury, however, in finding for
the plaintiff for the full amount Of the
claim, must have found, in view of
the evidence and the instructions of
the Court, that all assessments paid
by the pIsintifT up TO September, 1894,
were paid 10y HIM at the request OF the
defendant and upon the promise OF the
defendant 10 reimburse him aS soon "a
he, the defendant, should be able To
Il. hi
do 20, he having become entitled TO a
legacy of several times the amount of
the claim; and that the certificates
were held by the plaintiff as security
for the repayment of the advances.
The only question to be cons dered
on the exceptions is whether the jury
were correctly charged in substance
that upon these facts the law would
imply promise on the part OF the
defendant To- repay assessments adj
yanced even after notice 10 dIscon-
tiDue them, If II we're necessary for
the plaintiff to pay them III order To
preserve his security for the prior pay
ments.
II il well settled that where one is
obliged to- pay for his own protection
what il is the duty of another 10 pay,
the law implies both a request 10 pay
and a promise to reimburse. 1t must
be taken a. "A fact in this case that the
plaintiff was obliged To make the sub
sequent payments in order To preserve
his security for. the prior payments,
for the certificates would become VOID
If the assessments were not paid. Was
it, however, the duty of the defendant
to keep the certificate or policy alive
until he had paid To the plaintiff the
amount OF the debt for which the Ger
tificate was pledged "a security? This
question i not without difficulty, but
il seems 10 us upon general principles
that, in the absence of an agreement
10 the contrary, when one pledges a
security of this nature, he implicitly
undertakes to keep It alive for the
benefit of the Pledge 80 long "a II re-
mains as security for his debt, and
that therefore, upon his default, the
Pledge l. entitled To do what ne, the
pIedgOr, should have done and To look
TO him for reimbursement. Ihls
seems to he the law elsewhere in the
case of pledges of ordinary policies of
insurance 80 far as can be Judged from
references in text books to cases which
are not in our library. See, for in
stance, Biddle on ms, Sec BPS, 32y,
and IS IN. * Eng. Enc. 63S, Note t.
And the reason would seem TO be
stronger i'm cases of benefit certificates
of the kind in question which possess
no cash or paid up value upon sur
render.
The other questions raised by the
bill of exceptions are abandoned
The exceptions were Ovrrruled.
Carter * Kinney and =. NJ. BallOu,
for plaintiff; J. \. MagoOn aud Paul
Neumann, for defendant.
Honolulu, October II, 1898.