The Lancaster news. [volume] (Lancaster, S.C.) 1905-current, 1918-03-22
Not Duty of Company to Tender
Contract Other Than That
Applied For.
GOES TO SUPREME COURT
Much Tried Case Will Again Be
Heard by States Highest Tri-
bunal for Settlement of I'M
pOrtant Points.

The case Of II. T. williams. admin
istrator of Margaret f. Williams, VS..
the Philadelphia Life Insurance COM
pany. which was being heard in the
Common Pleas court when The
News went to press Tuesday, involves
some points OF general interest not
only locally, but even beyond the
borders of the State. The case went
to the supreme court at it's April,
1915, term on demurrer. Errors were
found in the trial below and a new
trial granted. 1t was this second
trial which was held here this week,
the court granting a non-suit.
The facts in the case brought out
by the evidence show that the appli-
cant for life insurance applied for
$4,000 insurance on her life on
what Is known as TERN insurance.
The agent writing the application
was her husband and the general
agent the Gordon Insurance and In
vestment company, Of Monroe N. c..
The company rejected the application
for term insurance, but issued and
sent to the general agent "for deliv-
cry" a policy for $4,000 on the
twenty year endowment plan, on
which the annual premium was
$1O1.06. while on $4,000 term in
surance the premium was only
$S0.50. The policy was not delivered
or rendered for delivery but was re-
turned by the general agent to the
home Office in Philadelphia for cam
collation.. TIE policy is dated De-
cember %, 1917, and was returned
to the company some time in jan
uary. March 6. Mrs. Williams died.
April 13. Mr.. Williams wired the
company to ask what had been done
about the policy and was advised OF
the above facts. together with the
statement that the company would be
glad to re-instate the policy, pro-
vided the green health certificate
enclosed was properly executed"
A good portion OF the afternoon
session Tuesday was taken up in ar
guing the admissibility OF certain
evidence tending to show by parol
agreement waiver of stipulations
contained in the application and
policy as to the payment Of prem ium.
Judge Ira B. Jones conducting the
argument for the admission OF the
evidence. and j. j. Parker, of coun-
sci for the defendant, opposing it,
The court ruled out the evidence on
the ground that parol agreement
could not contradict written con-
tract. and that the written applica-
tion merged all agreements.
Counsel for the defense made
motion for non-suit and the court
sustained 1t. taking the position that
IL was not the duty of the company
or agent to tender the 50 1000 endow-
ment policy or any contract other
than that applied for. If the policy
applied for had been issued and de-
livery held up. the plaintiff would
have had an action on contract or
tort.
The case will go to the supreme
court again.
1t was stated in Tuesdays paper
that the plaintiffs counsel amended
the complaint to read two thou
sand dollars" Insurance applied
for), instead of ten thousand dol
lars" and this is the only material
change in the status OF the case 70
go before the supreme court.
The case is being hardfought
from both sides. thirteen prominent
lawyers being employed. For the
defer Sc, Duane, Morris & Heckster.
of Philadelphia; Wilson & Wilson
and Stack and Parker. of Monroe,
and CIaud N. Sapp. of Columbia. For
the plaintiff. Jones & Jones. and
Williams & Williams & Stewart, OF
this city.