The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-10-27

- = Heessaon - he Unitsa oeatae go
oDurt 1t apDen1O h Ian lyonceneo
E1ay. Mn. Nee1to Phfnney. r.
71U e Guy G. HhlupGy. WI @ nbaa
~ rfscs about e1eeyeo "a eaeh - ~
- = rsobably the Anal action = DIE
$500 Phinney life insurance. case. ana
r perhAps the largest sum evee OBJ
76o1 On IN Insurance. policy. the ny.
- q which has ben contested.
- one&s Dispatch fron San Trnne1uce
the following details:
- Francisco. Oct Ain nccordnnoa
IN opinion delivered tl1is xnoeuiuG
~ United States circuit court q ar-
z76nn the Mutual Lite fnsurnnce Com
80 ~ New York. will be compelled 70
- Nh Nellie Phinney nearly eloaeoo
- Judgment granted b. The lower
Em1 Was affirmed. owing to m error
&nodtted by r. ~ Hopkins. deputy
- Tor the United States circuit court
- Ninth district Of Waahfn2ton.
& Nh Nellie Phtnney. - executrix %
state Of Guy G. Phinney. deceased.
l0oeht suit against the Insurance conn
4 6v n order 70 compel payment cf the
80 held BY Phinuey during his hfe-
- A JUDGMENT VA granted In the
61rrtt court. but the caae vas Appealed.
#m r, Hopkins. clerk Of the court ia
nA1ugfon. failed 70 properly IN
- The writ Of error did. and there-
- ohoro = no o5Elclnl record showing
= ~ ~ writ was actually aIod. Conso-
nt1y. legally. the circuit court Of APP
Sn6h has no judiciA, knowIedgs ~ the
q - eims allowed within which N ap-
- might b Aled has expired. hence the
lfcn rendered today by Judges Rosa
S 10y and Gilbert. Affirming the judy
- fhn fovAp e>a1apt n AAal
ST ~ aneunf. With interest. involved ag-
Sates nearly 3I0o.0oa
~ u Warburton. o0o 81 the attorneys
1gTA fhinney. said last night that the
Iii question In the case was ~ to
f6fter the company had to mail to the
S7lcy holder statutory notice. The stat
- e. New York require the company.
fol6Ro II can forfeit contract. 10 NAH
Insured notice. In this case the evil
6nco seemed TO dtscioss the fact that Mr..
1fhan0. when his second premium be-
49, due. asked the agent " he would
~ eive him few days time or take his
- Tho agent told him mo-" he would
NM 70 get the money A few days later
II phinney again asked for time, and
eas refused. Thirty days later Mr.. PhIn-
- told the agent that he vas then ready
hDay the premium. but the agent refused
~ aeeept It because Mr.. Phinney could
~ rive . certificate of health.
d about . year from that date Mr.. Phin-
~ He'd. The company refused 10 pay
- policies. and Mrs Phinney brought
~ % recover. The company Was repre-
$3.50 By r. c. Strudwick and A. n Gil
IN, and the attorneys for Mrs. Phinney
0olo Andrew r. BurIeigh and 8. Warbur-
~ 81 Tacoma. Judge Hanford IN his
Nnofge told the Jury that me company.
~ having complied with the New York
o(atutes. under which X was chartered.
Noo liable on that ground. The jury WAS
= ~ whether the policy had been surren-
1oto1 or was regarded by Mr.. Phinney Al
n1v1ne iapscd. II the jury belived that
~ policy had been voluntarily ahAn-
1onod BY Phinney. with the full knowledge
- H. rights. Il should ftnd for defendant.
nj II II did not ind that the policy had
Nm abandoned It should ind for the
ylalnti6. At o'clock tina next morning
s ~ Jury brought in verdict In Mrs. Phin-
p6re favor. Tho case was then appealed.
- - stated In the San Francisco dis
tsA. the judgment granted By Judge
aneord Was affirmed owing - IN error
II Clerk Hopkins.
Another interesting point. to insurance
- particularly. II the fact that there
Nee provision In the Phinnsy policy
yNlcA waived statutory notice. hut un-
- Judge Hanford's ruling that provision
- 40 force. In the trial the company
Uotended that the policy being written
1910 Of the state Of New York, the
sp1tutes of the state OF New York would
~ Apply 10 the contract.
9 y Vas said last night that Nf. Burleigh
- ~. Warburton would divide up BE-
- them about quarter Of the Judg-
- Tor their services.