Source: https://openjurist.org/21/f1d/223
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 22:18:33+00:00

Document:
TIMAYENIS V. UNION MUT. L. INS. 00.
At Law· . H. & Royce,for plaintiff in error. Kittredge fI(l.f!kins, U. S. Atty., and.W. D. Wilson, for defendant. WALLACE, J. The transcript of the record brought up on this wri' of error consists of a declaration filed by the plaintiff, a consent by the respective attorneys for the plaintiff and defendant to waive a trial by jury, and that the action be tried by the court, and the opinion of the judge of the district court who tried the Muse, which concludes with a direction for a judgment for the plaintiff. There seems to ha.ve been no plea or answer on the part of the defendant, there is no bill of exceptions, and no formal judgment seems to have been entered. If it were proper to assume that a judgment had been entered, it would be competent for the plaintiff in error to insist upon any error apparent upon the record, if any exists, and it would then be the duty of the court to inspect the declaration, to ascerta.in whether the court below had jurisdiction, and whether the declaration sets forth a cause of action, and upon this record only those questions could be considered. Garland v. Davis, 4 How. 131; Bennett v. Butterworth, 11 How. 669; Suydam v. Williamson, 20 How. As the record now is, no such inquiry can be made, and it is ordered that unless within 30 days the plaintiff in error applies for a certiorari to bring up a perfect record, or for leave to dismiss the writ of error and anew, (Elmore v. Grymes, 1 Pet. 469.) the writ of error shill stand dismissed.
LIFE INSURANCE POLICy-INVALID ORANGE OF DESIGNATION.
A person who effects a policy of insurance upon the life of another for the benefit of the latter's wife, which by its terms becomes a paid-up policy after the payment of two annual premiums, cannot, after such premiums have been paid, surrender the policy, without the consent of the beneficiary, by an arrangement with the insurer. In such case, the wife can recover the amount for which the policy is a paid.up one, by the terms of the policy. upon the death of her husband.
stead of paying the premium in money, the insurer is under no obligation to the beneficiary to enforce the notes against the maker, any more than he would have been to receive them originally instead of the money for the premiums. Accordingly, if, when the notes are paid, the payment, by an arrangement between the parties to the notes, is applied to a different purpose, such payment does not inure to the benefit of the beneficiary in the policy as a payment of the premium.
Where a policy provided for due notice and proof of the death of the insured and of the just claim of the assured, and the insurer had paid the amount of the policy 10 a party not entitled by law to its benefits, he having presented proofs of the death of the insured to the insurer, and afterwards the rightful beneficiary made proof by affidavit of the death of the insured and the just claim of the assured, a general objection by the insurer to the sufficiency of the proofs is not good.
TIMAYENIS V.UNION MUT. L. INS. 00.
Rodocanacbi had been acting as the agent of the plaintiffs different considerations would arise. Dutton v. Willner, 52 N. Y. 312. When he did pay the notes he did not make payment of them, nor did the defendant, accept payment of them, as applicable to the premiums upon the original policy. They were paid, and payment was accepted, in extinguishment of an independent claim existing in his favor against the defendant. So far as the plaintiffs are concerned, the case stands as though they had never been paid. Deducting the amount of the notes, only two annual premiums had been paid upon the policy in suit. The plaintiffs are therefore entitled to recover $1,000, with interest, which begins to run 90 days after October 16, 1882, the date of the service of the affidavit of the proof of death and the claim of the plaintiffs upon the defendant. Judgment is ordered accordingly.
WRITTEN CONTRACT-PAROL CONTRACT TO MODIFy-ESTOPPEL.
If, according to a written contract, one party was to transfer-upon specified conditions-certain shares of stock to another, who, upon receiving such transfer, was to pay therefor a specific sum of money, the latter party cannot be permitted to show by parol that ho was not to acquire an unqualified right to the stock so agreed to be delivered to him, or that he did not assume an absolute obligation to pay for it at the price fixed.
A party who contracts as a principal will not be permitted to show, in' the ahsence of mistake, fraud, or illegality, that he contracted as an agent in a controversy between himself and the other contracting party, and the knowledge of the other contracting party does not affect the rule.
LAW AND EQUITy-OOMMON-LAW RULE EMPHASIZED BY JUDICIARY ACT.
Though courts of equity ha,e concurrent jurisdiction with courts of law upon all controversies involving fraud, they will not ordinarily exercise it when the parties have an adequate remedy at, law. Section 16 of the judiciary act (Rev. St. § 723) is intended to emphasize the existing rule, and to impress it on the federal courts. Where the cause of action is for fraudulent misrepresentations affecting the value of property Bold, and no relief is claimed. except by way of damages, and no discovery is asked, and no complicated accounting is involved, a bill in equity will be dismissed upou the ground that the remedy is at law.

References: V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 723