The age-herald., 1901-04-19
AN INTERESTING
 DECISION MADE
Chancellor Carmichael Decides
 Life Insurance Questions
TRIED TO AVOID THE POLICY
Father Insured Life for Sons Benefit. Company Took Four Premiums and Refused to Accept More.
 Court News.

Chancellor John C. Carmichael rendered ing several important questions relating to life insurance policies.
 suit was brought by A. J. Brown against the Travellers Insurance Com pany of Hartford, Conn.,, to have a life insurance policy declared to be in force and to establish his rights in the same and to compel respondents to accept the premiums upon the same as they became due.
 The father of complainant procured the insurance to be issued by respondent up- on his own life payable to complainant, his son. Complainant paid the premiums for several years on the policy, until the respondent refused to accept any further premiums and declared it's purpose of cancelling the policy
 The respondent demurred to complain ants bill for want of equity and contend ed. first, that the bill showed that the policy was a wager policy and therefore void, and second that the suit was not brought by the insured; that there was no privity of contract between complainant and respondent, and that therefore the complainant had no such interest as would entitle him to maintain his bill.
 The chancellor overruled both of these contentious of the respondent, holding that in the case at bar the father took out the insurance on his own life, and that the son had an insurable interest in the life of his father, and even if he had not, that respondents contention would at most raise question of fact as to whether the payment of the prem iums by the son son was a mere device to cover the wager Numerous authorities are cited to sustain tlss decision. and also that the son could have made the ap- plication and secured the insurance in his own name upon the life of his father. The que stion as to whether the beneficiary paid the premium would be material only in case he had no insurable interest in the life of the insured. The decision also holds that the beneficiary can maintain his suit to compel the insurer to recognize the poll icy and accept the premiums.
 Custom of Accepting Premiums.
 The respondent defended the suit also on the ground that the son signed the name of his father to the application. but the proof showed that 1t was done with his consent, and therefore the court held that it was the same as If the father had signed it. Defense was also made that the premium offered by the son had not been paid or rendered in Hart- ford. Conn.,, as provided by the policy. The proof showed that the respondent, through it's agent at Montgomery, had accepted four premiums, and the court decided that this custom established course of dealings between the parties which the insured and beneficiary might rely upon. Also that the refusal to &C., cept the last premium rendered before the filing of the suit was based on the alleged invalidity of the contract and
 Court ltems.
 Petitions in bankruptcy were filed by Will Williams and John A. Moreland
 Marriage licenses were issued to D. s. Dickerson and Alberta A. Linn William Waldrop and Jennie Lou Randle; Joseph Findley and Ellen Mckay; Luther S. Long and Alice Idelle Ellis; Milton N. MOOTe dHQ hTS MdBBle Dedcicys
 All cases set for trial yesterday In the Criminal Court were continued.
 The City and the Circuit Courts are not in session this week.
 The following deeds were filed:
 G. E. Peck and wife to c. E. Edwards, part of block 7so. Birmirs eham. sgi75.
 Noah Felton ct al. to H. T. Wimberly. one-third interest ia lots IS and 19. block 73, Birmingham. 5000.
 B. A. Thompson and wife to T. w. Daniel, part of lot 5. block 646, Birming ham, 5000.
 J. L. Ferguson and wife to G. H. Estes lots 13 and IA, block 42, South Smithfield, s1225.
 J. W. Minor to D. Castleman, part of the northwest quarter of block TSP, Bir- mingham, 5000.
 In the Chancery Court yesterday Claudia Wood has filed suit for divorce
 -A