The Saint Paul globe., 1899-01-31

The supreme court yesterday, Justice
Buck dissenting. affirmed the decision
Of the district court in the case of Mrs.
Louisa Banholzer against the New
York Life Insurance company, an ac-
tion to collect a $4,000 policy The
plaintiff loses the SUIT and the policy.
William BanholZer had given a prom
issory note for the payment of part of
his premium. and this was not paid on
time. Meanwhile Banholzer had been
taken i'll, and, when some friends went
to the agents of the company with the
money to pay the premium and take
up the note. the company refused to
accept it. The plaintiff in the suit con-
tended that there W6s no notice given
by the company of the expiration of
the time for the payment of the in
stallment, which was allowed to become
overdue, and thus notice was made the
point of contest in the suit.
majority of the court hold that
when the time for payment of pre-
MUM is extended as matter Of ac-
commodation to the insured a second
notice is unnecessary.
The New York law, under which the
case was tried, provides for fifteen
days notice of the time when the pre-
MUM is to be paid. A majority of the
court holds that a second notice was
unnecessary, but Justice Buck dissents
from this opinion, holding that since
the company, through its agents, saw
fit to extend the time, the first notice
cut no figure in the case, and second
should have been sent. Justice Buck
holds that the lower court should be
reversed. and a new trial granted. The
majority vote decides the case, how
ever.
Justice Mitchell handed down the ma
jority opinion.
The following are the syilabi In other de-
cis,ons filed:
Cyrus L. Brown, respondent, VS.. The Equita-
BILE Life Insurance Society of the United
Sy.labus-The defendant issued a policy OF
insurance on the life of the p-aintif, payable
to himself in twenty years.
Subsequently plaintiff assigned the policy to
H. by a written assignment absolute in form,
but in fact merely as security or indemnity
for loan which he agreed to procure for.
the plaintiff. but which he failed to do. r.,
however remained in the possession Of the
policy and subsequently assigned 1t to
bank as security for a loan. which he has
never repaid. The bank made the Joan, re-
lying the absolute assignment from plain
tiff to H., and believing from an examination
of it that H. was the owner of the policy
and without any knowledge that plaintiff had
him and H. When the policy matured the de-
fendant paid 1t to the bank, but with notice
of plaintiffs claim From the time the policy
was assigned to H until it matured H. paid
the premiums on it, which plaintiff has never
repaid.
Held. that the bank took the assignment
OF the policy subject to the equities between
plaintiff and H., and that Plaintiff was not
estopped as to the bank to assert his rights
by the fact that he had executed and de-
livered to H. an assignment Of the policy
absolute in FORM.
But. held, also, that H. had lien on the
policy for the premiums he had paid, that this
right passed to the bank by his assignment
and to the amount of the premiums paid by
H. it was entitled to the money on the policy.
And the payment by the defendant to the hank
constituted q defense pro tanto to an action
on the policy. Order fol. Judgment modified.
Mitchell.