The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1896-02-28
HIGHEST COURT DECISIONS.
Synopscs of Decisions Handed Down
at the Last Sitting.
LIFE INSURANCE CASE REVERSED.
Decision Of importance to Policy Holders
Number Of Cases Decided by the
Court OF Civii Appeals.


OF chief Justice A. H. While and Assoc
ciate Justices g. g. po,ta,. ,rat q NOV.
'''N '"S''Nes - - io''er anu L. IL Len
man, yesterday delivered the following
opinion I'm the case of T. NJ Mullen w.
the Mutua, Life Insuro,,, ,,,,,,,.,,,,. rr,,,,
poxo, ,s,,,,,,'. ''''~V ''''l""s' i'''''
peN"r county;
Plaintiff in his petition altered that he
and his wifi, Maud ,,,,,'
company lar n 1i,c NIL, !" ~ ,g uvivnas ~,
ordinary lie tcin, p nIaE OF 100 nron ans
,iistrthtiio,,. ,Iet ,, i'",s ~ .WchtN H'si 9
that it should h" cons;ia,i M III
ject ia IN" "b"t, Su'' 1g as nhno SUP,
the laws OF New Vn,,s. ,sot @ ,,,.,.
iSqs d"frninn, ,U," tutn Oh J'iWaty "
ed in tbn %nn,i~nti,ua i,o'VH ns FelusSst,
died I'm ISM d,,rin,r ~ t,at MS H",IVl
pohcvI ana maj ht,b ,i,r,t ul 1, i
| wife h,d a,,l,ai,. - :. pl"iitul "'u uuS
the terms of their n,. ,urS ~ Wn.
the navn,rni az tha ','.'a,,vn, II, nlaN,nE
policy The foliowin,, v' ,,u,S ulVHn 'tv
of Now ynri, 80 'IS 1850" on nv NV
nv nin,rtiye'N IN IN II IT, iie'utu ahu ptoNuu
doln,r h,,sinoss Nv ~, ~ ,nsut"nee company
shall have nornr Wv NV S.Jn vi MW IN
iapscl anv rpoI,cv to u,Siare l9niS',Vu or
nnm1a, ~ ,vaSu' o, non nrnt OF my
thereof. unless a notice In writing stat.
ing. the amount OF said annual payment
or interest due and when due on such pol
syhS, ing inc pace whore such Interest
and mailed NV mo nv Si,,,, $50,
policy to the insured pnstare Maid 10 Ills
or her inst Known nddrr,se NO, loss than
thirty no.. more han sixiv do,s hcf"r"
each payment becomes due, according to
me terms OF such policy
potendant fied general denial and
| Phtlu,u specially thnt Maud j. Muller did
moI We during tho continuance OF tho
PIIt''y. os s,o,., ,,,., a.. .,., 49, 49,
! ~ was SHOWN upon the trial that the
irst tWo payments OF the premium had
,peen made, nut that plaintiff had entire
~ ictaulted as to the two last premiums
due There was a judgment for the de-
.N''"i''N ~ wv VIM 'NtiA Hln LNlS lubE-
lnent was affirmed by the court OF civil
L. lhe provisions oi the New YORK stat
part Of The ccntr,ot l4nnI his stetito
i has been held by the courts of New
nork mat no Iort1iture OF u NE policy
i'm Inc s,n,,t" Sos Moon, ,-Vd,, ,nnt ~, M
burden Of shov.imr snch Hnntir, ' 10 unnn
the insurance company; and that the in
sured ~ not considered IN default nntl
rjvcn dia n w 1'U',,cJ ,'V q, ,,,o
! ii,.ht or his ronstrurtlnp OhIrT his ro,,,,,
must accept. IL would seem thai The Main.
whai was In,aIiw I'm, mn, ,'T ba, ,a oily
! essnl.v Ia show n ripbt tn rnrn,cr vvhtio
| II is true that he fnIlcd Ia nav Two az tho
matuNd premiums before his wifo's death
I Nel; IN nc absence or notice. such failure
premises. and id moi cnnstitntc n b 'rY
/ of his ohihpntion 10 na,, nremi,i,ns ~ La
follows that me allegation that Maud i
] ToiirV WnQ IDrnllV and 1itarnllv tVuc IN tho
| absence of the notice provided for Nv the
statute.
=. 20 inc denAls or INC detrndant gen
| tlfion' furnish n surTinient hnsis IN ,oneI
pleading TO permit the introduction OF
proof 81 forfeiture? The forfeiture Of the
/ ,,ithj, ,hm sl,,,,'i"i' ~ 1iN h,o,.iii'',iN
! ana ono th,t {, rouid oi,bar y.ai,,a nt. ,m
/ siet mon at ,llo,e,,,.o ,,,n ,ri"L 49, w., v,
| shouid have hon reouircd 70 sn no,,i
/
rronf or s,rs Wc 40 ,,nt tnni t,piiSS
10 extend orr already lthoral ,uIos ~
pleading 10 favor n forfeiture For those
renso,q We ,htnl NM 4, y,as or,.o, ., -
mil evidence uiaer fb. nirad,nc ,boi n" "n
tica had been sent TO tho Insured
The FIRST question above disrussed is ono |
NAV W., becomc one Of considora'I Iii In,
nortafce. we prefer 10 p,ace our decision
upon the last question noticed above and /
t. ict the REGULAR court declare ne policy |
lion of noticc Reversed and ro,,oTT,io1
Opinion hy Potter special associate ius.