The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-02-05
INSURANCE AND JUSTICE.
Technica lities Insisted On in a
Case in the Federal
Courts.
Because It's Evidence Was Not Abso.
lutely Explicit a Company Is
Made to Suffer.

A decision rendered by the United States
Circuit Court of Appeals in this City yes
terday presents a phase of the stern re-
ouirements of law which, while of Incl
dental interest to insurance circles, will
not be forgotten for some time by attor-
neys.
The appeal acted upon was that of the
Provident Savings Life Assurance Society
from the verdict of the jury in favor of
Cora S. Nixon, widow of Thomas l..
Nixon, a Tacoma man, who had insured
his life for $4,000, the policies of $1,000 and
SIS, 900.
Apparently the company had the Justice
of the case on its side, while the plaintiff
had all the technicalities of the legal pro-
cedure in the trial OF her case in her favor.
Evidence of the company had been ruled
out on technical grounds, and, in accord
ance with the action of the bench in the
lower court in ruling out this evidence and
instructing the jury as to the absolute
necessity of the legal techniealities being
complied with, the jury found for the
plaintiff.
The appeal was argued before Circuit
Judges McKenna and Gilbert and District
Judge Hawley, and Judge McKenna wrote
the opinion. The decision sustains the
lower court ana affirms its judgment.
The company may, under the cireum-
"
States Supreme Court, for its local agent,
George c. Pratt, feels that while the de-
cision may be strictly in accordance with
the rules of evidence, justice has fallen
short. and the company is made to suffer
because of the strict letter of the rules of
the court on Puget Sound.
According to the decision Nixon failed
to pay certain premiums on both policies.
The New York statute requires notice of
delinquency to be given to the insured and
allows thirty days i'll which the unpaid
premiums are to be paid. If the delin-
quent does not pay his premium WITHIN
this time limit his policy becomes void
governed by the New York law, mailed
the necessary notes to Nixon, and its de-
Tense was that as he had not paid the pre-
miums within the specified time his poll
cies were forfeited.
When the case came up for trial Secre-
tary William E. Stevens and Clerks Harry
II. Meeder and E. Seward Prosser of the
general office in New York testified as to
the mailing OF the required notices. but
Mr.. Stevens evidence was ruled out on
the ground that he was not competent
person to testify, and that of the two
clerks was ruled out on the ground that
their testimony did not show clearly that
the notices had been sent to the "last-
known postotfice address," or that the
postage had been paid by the company, I"
as the law explicitly requires.
Thus, although they could produce ex-
hibits of the notices sent to Nixon their
evidence did not avail in the lower court,
simply because it was not sufficiently ex-
act as to these two details. Judge Nc
Kenna. in concluding his opinion, OBJ
served:
ITO allow the testimony to be proof of
the requirements of the statute would be
TO relax it too much and afford opportun-
ity for its evasion"
Nixon died April Is, 1891. His premium
on the $1,000 policy which fell due on Sep
TENDER u, 1890, was not paid, and that on
his $15, 900 policy, which fell due on 0cto-
Ger IL, 1890, was not paid.
Agent Pratt explained yesterday that
his company has always been careful to
send the notices required by the law and,
TO be doubly sure, it takes particular care
also to send notices beforehand informing
its patrons when their premiums will be-
come due.