Case Name: Eliab W. Badger, administrator, vs. American Popular Life Insurance Company
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1869-11
Citations: 103 Mass. 244
Docket Number: 
Parties: Eliab W. Badger, administrator, vs. American Popular Life Insurance Company.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 103
Pages: 244–244

Head Matter:
Eliab W. Badger, administrator, vs. American Popular Life Insurance Company.
A policy of life insurance which provides that ifc shall not be in force until countersigned by “ A. B., agent,” is invalid till so countersigned, although A. B. is himself the assured and the policy has been received and retained by him.
Contract by the administrator of the estate of Almarin F. Badger on a policy of insurance, alleged to have been made by the defendants on the life of the plaintiff’s intestate. Trial in this court, before Gray, J., who made a report of the case, of which the material part was in substance as follows :
The defendants sent to the plaintiff’s intestate at Boston the policy declared on, which contained the following provision: “ Nor shall this policy be in force until it is countersigned by A. F. Badger, agent at Boston,” By “ A. F. Badger, agent,” was meant the intestate. On his death, this policy was found among his papers ; but it had never been countersigned by him. The case was taken, by consent of parties, from the jury, and reserved for the determination of the full court; if, on the above facts, a jury would be warranted in finding a verdict for the plaintiff, then judgment to be rendered for him; otherwise, for the defendants.
H. W. Paine Sf H. F. French, for the plaintiff.
G. O. Shattuck Sf J. B. Thayer, for the defendants.

Opinion:
Chapman, C. J.
The defendants sent to Almarin F. Badger, the plaintiff's intestate, the policy in question, containing the following clause: " Nor shall this policy be in force until it is countersigned by A. F. Badger, agent at Boston." He received the policy and had it in his power to make it a valid contract by countersigning. But he did not do this, and consequently the policy never became in force. We need not inquire into the motives of the company for inserting this conditio.n; nor into his motives for neglecting to comply with it. It is sufficient that the defendants had a right to insert it and to insist upon it. There is no evidence tending to show that it was waived.
Judgment for the defendants.