Case Name: Emma Van Wert, Respondent, v. The St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1896
Citations: 8 A.D. 107
Docket Number: 
Parties: Emma Van Wert, Respondent, v. The St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 8
Pages: 107–111

Head Matter:
Emma Van Wert, Respondent, v. The St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, Appellant.
Insurance — the unreserrecl surrender of a policy terminates an extension of the time for the payment of the premium,—the fire days’ notice before cancellation is not required, in such a case.
A surrender of a policy of insurance to the agent of the insurer, without protest on the part of the insured, or any pretense until after a fire that she wished to retain the policy, terminates any credit which may have been given her for the payment of the premium in arrear upon the policy.
An insurance company may terminate such a credit at any time, and its act in taking hack a policy is explicit notice to the insured of such termination. Where a policy provides that a notice of five days must he given of an intention to cancel the policy, such notice must he deemed to refer to a policy which is in force, either hy payment of the premium or hy credit which has not expired.
Putnam, J., dissented.
Appeal by the defendant, The St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Ulster on the 9th day of January, 1896, upon the verdict of a jury rendered by direction of the court after a trial at the Ulster Circuit, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 9th day of January, 1896, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.
The facts are stated in the dissenting opinion of Putnam, J.
William D. Murray, for the appellant.
Charles F. Cantine, for the 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 defendant without protest, or any pretense that she wanted to retain it, and made no further claim to it until after the fire.
The legal effect of that surrender, without reservation, was to terminate the credit given her for the 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 he 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.
All concurred, except Putnam, J., dissenting.