The comet. (Johnson City, Tenn.) 1884-1916, 1899-08-17

lsiactlon before the payment and set |
Element of said policy and claim there
under, is now estopped in equity and
good conscience, after full settlement
between it and this respondent, to re-
open the controversy, and make it
ground for recovery in this cause of
the money so paid, and respondent
here pleads and relies upon these facts
rs full and complete bar and defense
to complainants recovery upon the al
legations set forth in section ~. il its
said bill.
V.
AS to whether or not the. insured
named in said policy would have been
able to make the annual payments re-
quired to keep said policy in force, is a
mere matter of speculation. and one on
which complainant cannot hope to base
claim for relief. Complainant, how
ever, seems hard pressed, when it is
forced to resort to such ends in its ef-
forts to recover here.
1t is not true that said Chase had not
paid to the complainant its premium
upon said policy at the time of his
death. The complainant had received
every cent of its money before said
Chase received the injury from which
he died, or shortly thereafter. His
credit was good enough in the city of
Knoxville, where said policy was is
sued, for compliments agent to dis
count without recource, his note for
said premium. Said note was so dis
counted with one of the largest bank
ing institutions in Knoxville, and COM
plainant's agent received from the
bank, the money for said note. 1t is
not material to complainant when sad
note was paid to the bank, Or whether
it was ever paid, Us it had received it
money on said policy, and said Chase
had therefore discharged his obligation
to complainant, neither it nor its agent
being in any way liable or bound on
said note, and they having passed it to
third party for cash, in due course Of
trade, and without recourse, as stated
But further than that, said note in the
hands of the bank, when it matured
was endorsed by this respondent, who
owned then and still owns an estate il
her o@n ri-I,, abua'lAp'ly su'.ici,n'
S f1r the la.' lneut Of said note.
r However, the assured mado no rep
a resentation to the complainant as tt
9 his financial condition, or ability tC
: meet the premiums on said policy. l
: relied upon its own Investigations will
! respect thereto, and having made sucl
d Investigations, it should not now b.
: heard to complain. 1t should have salts
fed itself finally rs to those matters be
fore taking the assured s money and Civ
ing its policy, rather than for that reasol
- after his death, to seek to take from
= his widow and children, that for whicl
.. he had paid. But respondent denie
). that he would not haye been able t
q carry said policy, and meet said prem
q iums as they became due.
:, vi.
= Respondent deposited the whole c
said sum of Twenty Thousand dollar
= in the Knoxville banks named as dc
PENDANTS to the bill, taking their certif
= Gates Of deposit therefor, in the sum {
So, 100000 each, leaving somethin
over 100000 standing to her credit
10 subject to check, with defendant Eas
= :, Tennessee National Bank, and out {
= the same, she also paid certain debt
10 of said Thomas r., and her note I
" said bank for 81, 10000, representa-
, the premium on said policy, the di'
count on same having been adjuste
y before hand.
No part of said 100000. 90 was depo'
20 tied with the Banking and Trust Con
- pany at j Crimson City, but responder
did deposit there check for 50, 900. o.
AZ issued to her by the United Order I
,, the Golden Cross, of which beneficiei
ID order her husband had been membC
u for some 10 to Is years. What part
ID same was still on deposit at said ban
Y. when the bill was filed, the answer
10 said Banking and Trust Company wi
u show
K But few days previous to the film
p OF the bill respondent had her said ce
I'd tificates of deposit renewed for thru
n months, and increased to about SO, 050.t
te eeac and these certificates are still
ie her possession.
le She has never had, aud has not no,
u any funds in the hands of defendal
81 Frank Yoakley.
so VII.
60 Each and every allegation in cor
Id plainant's said bill contained, not her
es inbefore answered, admitted, denie
'n or pleaded to and denied in separa
Us plea. specifically. is here and now d
IS MED generally, as fully as though sep
Id rately and specifically denied, and cor
plainant is called upon to fully pro
In and establish same according to Il
1d rules of law and of this court. Al