The independent-reporter., 1910-03-03
LILLIAN ]. WASHbURN VS.,
j. s. CASUALTY co.

down rescript in the Somerset coun-
ty case of Lillian j. Washburn versus
the United States Casualty company,
sustaining the exceptions of the plain
tiff.
The rescript which was drawn by
Associate Justice William Penn White
house OF Augusta, is as follows:
This is an action of assumpsit upon
an accident insurance policy issued to
Henry Washburn. by the terms OF
which the defendant became liable to
pay to the plaintiff as beneficiary the
sum of $4,000 in the event of the death
of the insured resulting from bodily
injury effected by external and acci-
dental means.
1t satisfactorily appears from the
testimony of Mr. Griffin, the defend
ants general agent, and from the doe
umentary evidence in the case. that
for ten or fifteen years prior to the
date of the policy in suit.Mr. Grimm
had been entrusted with the absolute
ccarge Of Mr. Washburn's insurance
business, and for that purpose had
pigeon hole in his safe devoted TO the
exclusive custody of Mr.. Washburn's
papers. All of his insurance policies
were deposited and kept in that pigeon
hole and nothing else was kept there.
tn PaGh for
a policy but paid the premium only on
presentation of a bill therefor, rea-
sonable time after the policy had been
deposited in the pigeon hole Mr.. Grit
fin further states that he had explicit
instructions" from Mr.. Washburn ne
yer to let a policy expire until he was
told to" and that under this general
instruction all of his policies had been
renewed
1t Is true that prior to January 10,
1907, the date of the life and accident
policy in question, all OF the policies
taken out by Mr.. Washburn had been
for fire insurance, but the original lie
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 bill
therefor several months afterward. in
pursuance of the same course or busl-
ness 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 under
stood that the deposit of the policy in
the pigeon hole used exclusively for
Mr.. Washburn and that from that
amount there was valid contract OF
! insurance. Indeed. it is not controVert-
ed by the defendant that this transac-
| ton constituted a valid contract of in
surance under the original policy,
! from Jan. l6, 1907, and would have
been binding upon the defendant com
pany in the event of the death of the
insured before the actual payment OF
the premium by him. But the question
now is whether this policy of iRsur-
ance was in force at the time OF the
accident. Feb. 49, 1908. The plaintifi
contends that the original policy had
been renewed according TO the estab
lished rules and usages of the com
pany. and the previous course of busi-
ness with the insured After a month
before Jan. l6. 1902 the date fixed for
the expiration of the term of oae veal
named in the original policy accord
ing to the uniform custom MIR Griffin
received from the company renewal
tho nniiPN n force
another year Before the expiration ol
the policy. Mr.. Griffin duly counter
signed this renewal receipt and at
tached ii to the policy then in MIR
Washburn's pigeon hole III the safe
and on Jan. l6 1908. charged the re
newal premium of $25 to Washburn
and credited the amount to the com
pany. and also attached copy OF II
to his policy register.
1t is not in controversy that Mr.
/ Griffin understood by the explicit in
structions from Washburn never TO
let policy expire unless told to- he
/ had the same authority to renew the
policy in question that he had to re
new fire insurance policies. Mr.. Wash
j burn was presumed TO know when his
policy would expire He knew what in
structions had been given him respect
ing the renewal Of his policies, and he
knew that these instructions had not
been countermGnded. 1t is reason
able inference that he expected the
policy to be renewed. Mr.. Griffin
understood that he was expected tC
| understand that MIR. Parkhurst OF
Bangor and others, who are in the
same position that | am in, will be
| @ % midi lns auain with good