Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1902-03-09
LIFE INSURANCE SUIT
ADMINISTRATOR BROWN
WINS AGAINST EQUITABLE
Action on Policy on Life Of Late
David B. Smith for Twenty
Five Thousand
Dollars.


Cecil Brown has won his suit as ad.
ministrator of the estate of David B.
Smith, deceased, against the Equita.
BILE Life Assurance Society of the Unit.
ed States. The Supreme Court render.
ed its decision yesterday, which was
written by Chief Justice Frear. w. A.
Whiting and w. J. Robinson were at
torneys for the plaintiff, and Hatch &
Silliman for the defendant.
The suit was on a policy for $4,000
on the life of deceased. A jury return.
ed a verdict for plaintiff, from which
defendant appealed. Administration
Of the estate was taken in New York,
, antagonistic in effect to the claim, as
sole heir of the daughter of deceased
in this jurisdiction. The company do.
Tended the action against itself here
partly on the ground that II might be
judicially required to pay the policy in
New York. For aught the court
knows. the same defense reversed may
be tried in New York. so that II both
defenses prevailed the company would
escape payment altogether.
For all the points decided by the Su-
preme Court, the following syllabus Of
the opinion tells the story:
A letter need not be produced as the
best evidence, when the question is,
not what was in the letter. but what
was said by one who read or purported
to read part from the letter
Harmless error is not ground for a
new trial.
A demand is not a condition prece.
dent to a right of action on a policy OF
life insurance which by its terms Is
payable on receipt of satisfactory
proofs of the death of the assured.
4 demand at the home Office of an
insurance company is not a condition
precedent to a right of action there or
elsewhere. even though the policy is
by its terms payable at the home office
OF the company.
Failure of the payee to attend at the
home Office of an insurance company
10 receive payment of a policy payable
there would merely enable the com.
pany to avoid payment OF interest and
costs by showing that 1t was ready to
pay at its home Office and by paying
the amount of the policy into court.
Retention OF proofs of death by ar
insurance company and refusal to pay
$ on other grounds entirely would pre-
vent the company from setting ~
either that the proofs were not salts
factory in form or that there was nc
demand. II a demand would otherwise
be necessary
An action may be brought on n pol
icy of insurance in one place though
J oy its terms the policy is payable II
another place.
Proofs n the death OF the assured
furnished by a temporary administra
tor inure to the benefit OF the perman
ent administrator.
The faith and credit" clause of the
constitution does not make the mere
commencement of an action in one ju
rlsdiction bar to similar action II
another jurisdiction.
A policy OF life insurance is assets
In the place where II is IL the insure
is doing business there and can b.
reached there by process.
An assured was domiclled in . thi
Territory at the time Of his death an
the policy was here. An ADMINISTERS
tor was appointed here. and afterward
administrators were appointed In Ne'
York. Proofs of death were furnishe
by the administrator appointed her
and afterwards by the administrator
appointed there. Action on the pc
Icy was begun here by the ADMINISTERS
tor appointed here and afterward
there by the administrators appointe
there. The policy was payable in Ne,
York, but the insurance company wa
doing business here and could b
reached by process here. Held. tina
the administrator was properly al
pointed here and properly brought a
ton here, and that neither the appoin
ment of the administrators nor Ii
commencement of the action in Ne
- Lork was cause for abatement of II
o action commenced here.
Mrs. Bourke. daughter of the la
d. b. Smith, is beneficiary under Il
local administration.