Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-06-14
COURT DECISIONS.
DIGESTED BY W. B. MARTIN.
EXCLUSIVELY FOR
VIRcINlAN-
Notes of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are of Interest to
Our People. - s
HoLLoWELL v. L. ms. co. OF VA
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
April II, 1900.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.
April II. 1900.
G1TB ACCEPTANCE OF CHECKS IN
PAYMENT OF LIFE INSURANCE.
PREMIUMS. IS A WAIVER OF
TINE COMPANY'S RIGHTTO FOR
J FELT A POLICY BECAUSE THE
PREMIUM WAS PAID BY CHECK.
WHERE THE MAIL HAD BEEN
THE METHOD OF SENDING
CHECKS IN PAYMENT OF PRE-
NUNS TO AN INSURANCE COM
PANY. THE POLICY WAS NOT
FORFEITED BECAUSE OF THE
FAILURE OF a CHECK, MAILED
I'm APT TIME. TO REACH THE
COMPANY UNTIL THE PREMIUM
WAS PAST DUE.
This was an action on an insurance
policy. The policy provided that fail
ure 10 pay premiums at the stipulated
period snail make the policy void"
From n judgment for plaintiff the
company appealed.
Inc court says:
Inc court charged as follows: "That
If the jury were satisfied by a prepon-
uerance OF the evidence that the pain
titi had for several years paid his pre-
miums through the mail by checks
drawn by ii. We'll & Bros, and in
dorsed by the plaintiff. and the dcfesld-
ant had accepted this method of pay
ment. then the pl;lintiff had IL right
TO rely upon continuance of this
method, and the jury would answer
third issue. Yes" In this there was
no error. In Insurance Co. V. Icgglcs-
ton. 90 u. S. ST. the court says: 1--WE
have recently, in the case of Insurance
Co. ". Norton. shown that forfeitures
are not favored in law, and that courts
Are always Prompt to seize hold of any
circumstance that Indicate an election
TO waive q forfeiture. or an agreement
j, to do so on which the party has relied
: and acted. Any agreement, dcclara-
uon or course Of action on the part OF
an insurance company which leads
, party Insured honestly to believe that
by conforming thereto q forfeiture of
his policy will not be incurred fol-
lowed by due conformity on his part.
VIII and ought to cstop the company
from insisting upon the forfeiture.
though 1t might be claimed under the
express letter of the contract. The
company is thereby estopped from en-
forcing the forfeiture" This line of
decisions rests upon the ground not
that the course of dealings, changes
the contract. but that the other party
Is mlslcd by relying upon 1t. as he has
right to do until expressly notified
that the course of dealings would be
discontinued.
iit HtAl GAtcItlOH insisted UPON Is
the refusal OF the court to give this
instruction: THAT If the jury believe
the plaintiff deposited a letter contain
ing said premium In the postofiice at
Gddsbo1o In time TO be transmitted
to Richmond on the 25th day of July
1898. and said letter was not so trans
United. and did not reach Richmond
until the Goth day of July, 1898 on ac-
count of the negligence of the post
office department or some employee
hon 4
paid on the 18th day Of July. $685. and
the policy would be forfeited. and the
jury should answer fifth issue, Moth
ing O2efused. Defendant cxceptcd.)"
The Judge charged as follows: 'And
If the jury should be satisfied by n
preponderance of the evidence that
the plaintiff mailed the letter address
ed to the defendant. in Richmond, Va,
on the morning of July % 1898, in time
to have reached Richmond by 6 p. m.
on that day. and said letter contained
n check of H. We'll Sc Bros, indorsed
by the plaintiff to the defendant; and
If they shall further believe that the
plaintiff has been in the habit for sew
eral years of paying his premiums by
said checks, sent by mail, and the de-
PENDANT has been In the habit of re-
ccivinE said checks sent by mail. in
payment of the premiums, and the de-
PENDANT received said check on the
morning of July 26th. and returned
tne Sdlle " the plalnllIt and cancelled
the policy-thcel said cancellation was
wrongful and the jury will answer the
fourth issue. Yes Defendant ex-
cepted)" The notices sent to plaintiff
by the defendant directed him to "re.
nit, ETC." Remit" means transmit:
forward; send" A case exactly in
point Is Kenyon V. Association 1l2 N
Y. 247 which says: 1.-THE distance be-
tween the place of residence of the as
sured and the defendants home office
Il t6nA
ments by his personal delivery at the
latter PLACE evidently was not con-
templated, and, so far as appears the
defendant was satisfied with the meth
cd of remittance from him directly TO
Its officer by mail: and such means Of
transmission may have been within the
expectation Of the parties. in view Of
their situation, and doing 1t through
the postal service might very we'll be
deemed no less safe and appropriate
than any other manner to make pay
ments by means of bank checks. As
this had been uniformly the manner
Of transmitting and accepting pay
ment. or the means of payment. of
assessments adopted by the parties, it
may be said that the postal medium of
transmission had In some sense be-
come n matter of usage between them
having the nature of an implied agree
ment to that effect" This case also
meets the objection raised In defend
ants brief. that in the prior dealings
all the checks were received before
the premium fell due. and the con-
clusion was warranted that, by the
course of dealing by the defendant
in that respect. the assured may fairly
and in good faith have been led to sup
pose that the requirement OF the de
PENDANT upon him was satisfied by
mailing, as he did. in his customary
manner Of doing 1t. the check for the
amount of the last assessment. The