Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1910-02-25

that he had explicit instructions
from MIR. Washburn never to let a
policy expire unless he was told to-
and that this general instruction all of
his policies had been renewed. 1t is
true that prior to Jan. Is, 1907, the date
of the life and accident policy in ques-
ton, all of the policies taken out by
Mr.. Washburn had been for fire insur-
ance, but the original life and accident
policy here in question was issued and
deposited in the same pigeon hole,
without the payment of any cash at
the time, and the premium actually
paid on presentation of a bill there
for several months afterwards, in pur-
Suance of the same course of business
that had been observed in respect to
the fire insurance policies. At the
time of depositing the original policy
in the pigeon hole, Mr.. Griffin charged
the premium to Mr.. Washburn and
gave the company credit for the
amount and he testifies that he I'M
derstood that the deposit of the policy
in the pigeon hole used exclusively for
Mr.. Washburn was a delivery of the
policy to Mr.. Washburn and that from
that moment there was valid con-
tract of insurance. Indeed it is not
controyerted by the defendant that this
transaction constituted a valid contract
of insurance under the original policy
| from Jan. 1G, 1907, and would have been
binding upon The defendant company
| in the event of the death of the insur-
! ed before the actual payment of the
| premium by him. But the question
now is whether this policy of insurance
was in force at the time OF the acct
dent Feb. 10. 1903. The plaintiff con-
| tends that the original policy had been
renewed according to the established
| rules and usages of the company and
| the previous course o. business with
the insured About month before
Jan. l6. 1908, the date fixed for the eX-
| ni1ationi of the term OF one year named
in the original policy, according to the
uniform custom, Mr.. Griffin received
| from the company renewal receipt
| 10 Continue the policy in force another
: az Before the expiration u the pol
! " Mr.. Griffin duly countersigned this
: , nneAaI receipt and attached it to the
! o,icv then in Mr.. Washburh's pigeon
I olo in the safe, and On Jan. IL. 1908
fharsrcd the renewal premium of $25 t.
! >voshburn and credited the amount to
he company, and also attached cop;
of it to his policy register 1t IS not II
controversy that Mr.. Griffin understood
! hv the explicit INSTRUCTIONS IRON
| ,Vashlurn never to let policy expire
! unless told to- he had the same au-
! thoritv to renew the policy in question
| that ne had to- renew fire insurance
rolicies. Mr. Washburn was presufaeo
% know when his policy would expire
) lie knew what instruct tons had peer
! ciyen hv him respecting the renewal o.
his rolicies an( he knew that thos"
! instruction mad rot been countermand-
sd If is q reasonable inference that NJ
oxnected to renew it. and from tn
/ whole tenor of his evidence. and espec-
! iallv from his letter of May II, 1908
| acknowledging the receipt of the plain
tiffs proof of loss. it is manifest tha'
! Fir. Griffin understood that the policy
lad been renewed and was in full force
rs 4 valid contract of insurance after
IS well as before Jan. 16, 1908.
The "exnlcit instructions from
Washburn never to let policy eN-
oire" would undoubtedly have beef
! .eld applicable to a new and original
policy Of fire insurance; and they ma!
with equal reason be held applcabl>
to policy Of life or accident lnsur-
ance. AS already shown they were
I unquestionably so understood and act
ed uron by Griffin, and in view of the
course of dealing between him and
Washburn and the existing situation
and circumstances, the language OF
Washburn's instructions justified Crit
fin in so understanding, and acting.
bill for the renewal premium
which had been credited to the de-
PENDANT by Mr.. Griffin before the orig
jral nolicy expired was mailed to Mr..
Washburn the day before the accident.
and if he had lived to receive it, his
Iega! obligation to pay the renewal
premium would have been as clear as
it was to pay the premium on the orgi-
nal policy. The element of muluallty
in the contract undoubtedly existed.
The opposite conclusion would be an
unwaranted assumption.
The agent testifies it is true. that il
Mr.. Washburn had lived and an
swercd his letter containing the bill for
the renewal premium. stating that he
did not wish to have the policy re-
newe6, he should have returned. the
renewal receipt to the home Office
But by his contract Of agency with the
company, Mr. Griffin had express au.
thority to return to the home office
within IA days of the date of it's issue
any policy refused by an applicant, in
which event the agent would receive
full credit therefor, and if upon the
receipt of a bill for the renewal Mr..
Washburn had notified him that he
had changed his mind and did not wish
to renew this policy. he would have
promptly returned the renewal receipt
to the home office. not on the ground
that there had been no valid renewal
of the policy, but as an act of accom-
mediation to an old and valued patron |
of his office. In his testimony in ques
ton he was not speaking of the legal |
rights OF the insured, but his own per- |
sonal attitude in the matter.
The conclusion thus reached that a |
valid contract of renewal had been |
made in this case, is in conformity |