Court Opinion

ID: 9833770
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:00:28.453316+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:06.573765
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
 Appellee had become insane and was confined in the state hospital for the insane from February 7, 1929, to May 17, 1930, when he was discharged. Under the terms of the policy no premiums could be assessed against him during Ifis period of insanity, but in violation of the plain provisions of the policy appellant declared a forfeiture of the same while such confinement existed. Although the forfeiture had been declared,' appellant is claiming that appellee, should have begun and continued the payment of premiums after he had been released from the hospital. Up to that time no premiums had accrued, and appellee was under no obligation to pay premiums on the forfeited policy. Appellant, in denying the jurisdiction of the district court, seems to forget that one of the objects of the suit was to set aside the forfeiture of a policy of insurance for $1,000.
This court might well have refused to consider the assignments of error copied into the brief because they are not the same as those contained in. the record. The record shows a definite desire to evade a contract made by appellant and deprive a person of unsound mind of his rights under such contract.
At the time of the attempted forfeiture no premiums were due on the policy, and none could have become due, even had the policy been in effect, until after May 17, 1930.
Neither the findings of fact nor the conclusions of law were excepted to by appellant, and they reflect the testimony and the law appropriate to them, and they are binding upon appellant. The latter knew the condition of Lee Ryan, knew ttjat no premiums were due, and yet made an attempt in violation of the terms of the contract to destroy the same.
The motion for rehearing is without merit, and is overruled.