The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-01-08
TIME-LIMIT INSURANCE,
Important Appeal in the Federal
Courts in the Phinney
Case.
Mutual Life'S Contention That Pre-.
miumS Should Have Been Paid
for the Full Period.

A very important point to insurance
men is involved in an appeal just taken to
the United States Circuit Court OF Appeals.
The case is the claim OF Mrs. Nellie Phin-
ney, executrix of the estate of Guy c..
Phinney of Seattle, Wash, against the
Mutual Life Insurance Company of New
York for 100000 policy.
Guy c. Phinney was one OF the best
known and most reliable business men OF
the Puget Sound metropolis, and built the
Butler block on the corner OF Second and
James streets there, one OF the first fine
buildings to go up after the great fire of
June, 1889. He also owned an extensive
tract OF suburban property known as
Green Lake and the electric line which
runs TO it.
On September "a, 1890, he took out a
500, 600 policy in the insurance company,
for which he was to pay an annual pre-
MUM of $3770. A condition of the con-
tract between HIM and the company on its
face obligated a payment of the premium
Tor period OF twenty years. However,
for some reason the company instructed
its agents not TO receive second premium
from Mr.. Phinney, though his first had
been paid and accepted.
Three years after taking out the policy
he died, and his demise was reported by
his widow to the company in due form.
The company refused To pay the insurance,
on the ground that the policy was void, by
reason OF the first premium having been
forfeited. Then a suit was brought to coll
Iect the 100000, and the jury of the
United States Circuit Court gave a verdict
to the plaintiff OF $97, OH 81.
1t is this verdict which the company
now, as plaintiff in error, is endeayoring
TO have set aside, and its appeal, the
transcript OF which was filed Yesterday
with Clerk Frank Monckton, is based upon
series OF exceptions to the court IS rulings
as TO the admission and exclusion of evil
dence, and its refusal to instruct the iurv
that the twenty years obligation was a
condition OF, and the very essence of the
contract. The court is charged with error
IN sustaining the objections of Mrs Phin-
ney's counsel to the testimony of DR.. ].
3. Eagleson, the medical examiner. and
F. S. Stemson, the general agent of the
company; also the evidence of Agent A. B.
Forbes, who had been instructed by the
company to refuse tie proffer of the
second premium.
If the appellate tribunal decides in favor
of the company it Will be equivalent to a
declaration that the obligation of the com
pany to pay the $100, 600 was based entirely
upon the condition of the contract re-
quiring the annual premiums to be paid
for the full period OF twenty years. With
this, though, is associated the question of
whether or not the company itself, in re-
fusing to accept the second premium. did
OF its own act forfeit the tenders of pre-
1niums made to it so long as the life of the
policy-holder continued, and also the one
of whether or not the company is bound
in equity 10 make some compensation to
the executriX for the confidence and good
faith of her husband.
SO far as the present phase of the case
goes. though, the equity of it may not be
reached, as the Court of Appeals will
proba bly, be required only to pass upon the
questions of law involved.