The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1907-07-11
INSURANCE MAN
IS CASTIGATED
Judge Howell Comments Quite
HarShIy on Agent in Hand
inu Down Decision.

Before leaving for the east, where he
will spend his vacation in attendance at
the national convention of the Elks, yes
terday District Judge Howell handed
down a decision in the case of Mary A.
Sinner against the New York Life Insur-
ance company in which he renders judg-
ment against the company and in favor of
the plaintiff.
In the decision, which is a lengthy one,
Judge Howell hands out some spicy pass
ages directed against the agent of the
company, B. K. Walton, who wrote the
policy. From the testimony in the case
Walton insured Sam A. Sinner for 5000
in the New York Life Insurance COM
pany, and for the first premium of s4S76
accepted two promissory notes from
Sinner and delivered the policy. When
Sinner was unable to pay the promissory
notes, Walton, the agent, suggested that
Sinner transfer the policy to him as the
beneficiary and he would pay the premi-
UNI. Sinner, laboring under the belief that
the policy would become delinquent
agreed to transfer one-half interest in the
policy to Walton, the amount being 81, coo
the remaining $1,000 to go to Mrs. Sinner,
the plaintiff in the action and the original
beneficiary. 1t was insisted by counsel
for the plaintiff that the assignment so
made was void as having been fraudulent
ly obtained and as being in violation of
public policy. The court held that both
grounds were well taken and said that
the policy in question was incontestable
from the date of its issue: that the agent
had no right to modify the contract in
any respect and after having accepted the
prOmisSOry notes in payment of the first
premium had no right whatsoever to for
felt or cancel the policy, because the notes
were not paid, that being a transaction
between himself and the insured and not
between the insured and the insurer
Continuing, the court says:
Yet he admits in his own testimony
that he told the insured that unless he
1eY1f fn he
his policy would be forfeited and can
celled, and the insured could pay So for
the privilege. The insured not having the
necessary cash. the agent then. with the
insidiOus and ingratiating seductivenesss
common to some insurance agents, sug-
gested that the insured could assign the
policy to him and he would pay the pre-
miums. Then, when the insured replied
that he would like to have $1,000 insurance
for the benefit of his children, imbued
with that Chrtst-like generosity also COM
mon to some few insurance agents, the
agent said he was willing to accept an
assignment of half the policy. But, giving
full credit to all his testimony-to all his
ostentatious charity, this agent was new
ertheless acting fraUdUlently, and his
honeyed language but sugar coated the
rOttenneSS OF the transaction.
And even # the agent had not acted
fraudulently, II would. so it seems to me,
be against the best interests of the pub
| lie to permit such transactions as this.
This agent, in this transaction now be-
| fore the court, was betting $4S against
$1,000 that the insured would die during
the year The insured did die and now
the agent wants to reap the benefit OF
his wager. No court ought to permit him
to so profit at the expense Of the widow
and her children. He should be repaid
his S4S and nothing more
There remains only to consider two
! questions. First, whether or not the de-
| PENDANT. the New York Life Insurance
company, is entitled to attorneys fees IN
/ this action, and, secondly, if the court
| should pay and heed to the garnishment
| by one Walsh in a Justice court in Mon
| tana, against the money due On this pol
| icy of insurance, for the funeral expenses
| of the deceased insured.
The court is of opinion that the de-
| PENDANT insurance company, not having
paid the money into court, TO be by the
court distributed. does not come within
the purview of the doctrine that where