Case Name: VAN WERT v. ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INS. CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1896-07-07
Citations: 40 N.Y.S. 463
Docket Number: 
Parties: VAN WERT v. ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INS. CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 40
Pages: 463–466

Head Matter:
(8 App. Div. 107)
VAN WERT v. ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INS. CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
July 7, 1896.)
Insurance—Cancellation of Policy by Surrender.
Where the insured, after repeated requests for payment of premiums, and- failure to pay, surrendered the policy to the agent of the insurer without stating that she wished to retain it, and made no further claim to it until after the fire, the policy is thereby canceled. Putnam, J., dissenting, on the ground that the evidence did not show a surrender of the policy.
Appeal from trial term, Ulster county.
Action by Emma Van Wert against the St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company to have the cancellation of an insurance policy set aside, and the policy delivered to plaintiff on payment of the premiums with interest, and to recover the amount of the policy. There was judgment in favor of plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.
Argued before PARKER, P. J., and LANDON, HERRICK, MERWIN, and PUTNAM, JJ.
William D. Murray, for appellant.
P. & C. F. Cantine (Charles F. Cantine, of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
LANDON, J.
The plaintiff, after repeated requests for payment of the premium, and her neglect to pay, surrendered the policy to the agent of the-edefendant without protest, or any pretense that she wanted to retain it, and made no further claim to it until after the ñre. The legal effect of that surrender without reservation was to terminate the credit given her for th(> payment of the premium. The company could, in the absence of any facts constituting an estoppel, terminate the credit at any time, and taking back the policy was explicit notice to her of such termination. The credit terminated, the policy ceased to be operative. The company did also in form cancel the policy. But it was canceled by the act of surrender without reserve. The five days' notice of intent to cancel has reference to a policy in force either by actual payment, or a still-continued credit for it. If—as I do not think—any of these questions were for the jury, we should then, in the exercise of our power of review of the facts, set the verdict aside, as against the clear weight of the evidence.
PARKER, P. J., and HERRICK and MERWIN, JJ., concur.