The Wheeling intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1903-1961, 1916-05-13
INSURANCE SUIT
WON BY HUBBARD
UNPARALLELED CASE DECIDED
IN CIRCUIT COURT YES
TEROAY
Motion For New Trial Is Made And
Arguments over Until Later Date
Involves Loans On Policies

Hon. William Z. Hubbard was
awarded a verdict OF Sl.562.23 BY a
Jury in Circuit Court yesterday aftN NJ
noon against the Equitable Life As
case of the records OF courts of the
land. a motion was made TO set aside
the verdict and grant a new trial.
which argument was continued until
a later day by the curt
Mr.. Hubbard was represented BY AZ
lorneys {. j. Schuck and J. Is. Hasd-
Ian. and the defense by Senator j. 4.
SOmmeryille. Hon. Guy Y. G.. Allen.
and William C.. Diamond a New York
The jury was composed of w J. J~uergens
robert Shaw. George G. Meyers, Geo.
Holman. ii. NJ. Thornburg. William
Ashley, Charles Eckloff, X. NJ. Wood.
{. IA. Henderson, T.. G.. banner, Will
IA Barton, and J. ID. Halstead. His suit
IS a 10 affect every policy holder
IN the country of this company.
In outlining the plaintiffs case to
the jury. Mr.. Schuck declared that he
was a policy holder in the company
Tor many years prior to March, 1911,
ana in that year under the provisions
OF the policies which he held he en-
deaNored 10 borrow Sl7,6SO to which
. was entitled at the rate OF five per
cent per annum, upo u assignment
OF his policies as collateral, anu tina
he was refused unless he would sign
a loan agreement in addition. He
y NAaAAAAfh that NnlS AEEtHtueuN MAS re-
pugnant to the policy.
This agreement, according q the
statement, and Mr.. H%ubbard's testi.
non later, provided that IL case Of
default the company could without no.
tee n the policies or apply this
cash surrender value as payment OF
principal and interest. He refused 10
1 the agreement, and the company
refused him the loan although he con
tended that he was entitled 10 a loan
during the life OF the policy.
The plaintiff further alleged that
failing to secure the loan. he had to
20 into the open market and borrow
the money. paying six per cent inter
est, and n was for the difference, or
one per cent. that he brings suit. plus
5000 for time, work and energy eX-
pended IN securing the loan. and $500
Tor the use Of collateral other thar the
insurance policies that he had TO put
up TO insure the loan.
Mr.. Hubbard pointed out in his testi-
mony that he was entitled to borrow
S3,9S9 on n policy. S6.140 on anoth-
er. and on the third $3.50. In reply
ing To Mr.. Schuck's outline. Mr.. Som
merVllle told the jury hal n was soCn
To decide a case unparalleled in the
courts OF the country. lie told of the
agreements submitted and that II was
similar TO those used b. The company
for years.
Mr.. Somerville stated that the plain
TIFF had refused 10 assign his policies
10 s~ubstantiate the loan. Mr.. Hubbard
was the first witness called for the
plaintiff n testified TO the heCotia.
tions, n the final making of the loap
in b open market. II su%bstantiated
the statements OF his attorney in omen
ing. Other witnesses for the plaintiu
were Thomas b. Sweeney. agent for
the defendant company who held the
policies, NJ. J. j. Holloway. Mr.. W. b.
Irvine. banker. and Mr.. Howrd Haz.
lett. The defense did not Xamin A
witness, depending upon cross exami-
nation and the plaintiff witnesses 10
build the case.