The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1903-03-10
Federal Court Of Appeals Decision
Adverse to Mutual Reserve
Fund Life Association.
REFUSES TENDER OF PREMIUM.
Opinion Written by Judge Thayer
Holds That Thirty-Day Notice of
Assessment Runs From Time
Policy-Holder Receives 1t.

A decision of much interest to insurance
companies and policy-holders was handed
down in the United States Circuit Court OF
Appeals yesterday in the case of Thomas
Ferrenbach, executor of Jacob Lambert, VS..
the Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association
of New York. Judge Thayer wrote the
opinion, which WIS concurred in by Judge
Caldwell. Judge Sanborn filed dissenting
opinion.
The evidence was to the effect that Lam
bert, weil-knov'n st. Louis citizen, had
insured with the company on April g. 1883.
and had paid premiums UP to 1883 amount
Ing to s2,66o.s5. On May 3. 1899. he rendered
his amman premium to the ST. Louis agent
of the company who refused to accept 1t
unless he would submit 10 another medical
examination.
As he was then more than 20 years old,
Mr.. Lambert refused to undergo the exam
nation, and the company declared his pol
icy void.
he sued to recover the amount of the
premiums already paid. While the suit was
pending he died. and his executor, Ferren-
bach, was named plaintiff in his stead.
The trial court returned verdict for the
insurance company. and the plaintiff ap-
pealed.
ASSESSMENT NOTICE POINT.
The main question to be decided by the
Court OF Appeals was as to the construc
ton to be placed on the clause in the con-
tract in the policy referring to the notice
Of lass assessment due from the policy-holder.
We're due and payable within thirty days
of the date of notice of such assessment.
The company based its refusal to accept
payment OF the premium rendered BY Lam
bert in May. 1899. on the ground that 1t had
not been rendered within the thirty days
lated his contract thereby. and that the
policy was legally null and void by reason
of such breach of contract.
The evidence showed that the notice Of
the assessment WAS mailed from New
York on March g. and reached st. Louis
March 81. Sunday.
to the office of the company to pay the
premium. but found that the office had
moved. When he located the agent on May
payment was not accepted. because Lam
bert would not comply with the agents
proposition for discrimination.
Judge Thayer held that the notice of
thirty days of the date of 1t, should be
construed to mean knowledge or informa-
policy holder. and not the mere piece Of
paper containing such notice.
Under such construction. the thirty days
should be calculated, not from the date on
which such document was written or mailed
but from the date IT was received at the
ordinary post Office address Of the policy
holder.
To prevent forfeitures Of policies. in cases
where doubt arises on questions such as
the one at issue. it has been the policy OF
the courts to give the insured the benefit Of
the doubt.
COMPANY IS CRITICISED.
THE conduct of the company" Judge
Thayer says; I'm attempting to get rid Of
this risk in the manner and under the cir
cumstances as indicated herein, cannot be
viewed otherwise than with disfavor. and
its construction Of the provisions Of the
policy and the bylaws of the company in
rejecting the policy, is contrary to the law
and to fair business dealing"
Judgment for the company IL reversed
and the case remanded for trial.
Judge Sanborn. in his dissenting opin-
ion. dlates at great length upon the legal
definition Of the words notice and date
in the clause of the contract providing for
the payment Of the assessment within thir-
He holds that the notice means simply
the paper or document. and that the date
refers only to the time marked upon it.
namely, the day of the week or month.
CONTRARY OPINION.
He holds that the notice" sent out means
simply the piece Of paper, and not knowl-
edge or information conveyed by that pa
per. Hence. he holds that the thirty days
per is dated or mailed. and not from the
time it is received at the ordinary post Of
fee of the insured
Again. he says. that even granting that
the date should be calculated from the time
the notice Is received. the evidence shows
that 1t was received at the post office
within the thirty days. but payment was
not rendered until the stipulated time had
expired. The payment was then overdue
and the policy. according to contract, was
null and void.