Hale v. Continental Life Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 14 June 1882
• Citation: 12 F. 359
• Parties: HALE v. CONTINENTAL LIFE INS. CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Vermont

12 F. 359

HALE v. CONTINENTAL LIFE INS. CO.

United States Circuit Court, D. Vermont.

June 14, 1882

Gilbert A. Dain, for the orator.

Charles W. Porter, for defendant.

WHEELER D.J.

The bill alleges in substance that the orator was induced to take an endowment policy upon his life in the defendant company with a right to share in profits, and to pay premiums thereon, partly in money and partly by his notes, through various representations made by the defendant's agent to the effect that the profits would amount to enough to pay and cancel the notes and otherwise as to what the insurance would amount to; that the time has elapsed, and the defendant insists upon taking the amount of the notes from the amount of the policy, and refuses to pay what the agent represented the insurance would amount to upon the payments made, and prays that the transaction may be declared to be void, the notes decreed to be given up, the amount of premiums paid decreed to be refunded, with interest, and for general relief.

The plaintiff is a citizen of New Hampshire, the defendant of Connecticut, and the suit was brought in the state court of chancery and has been removed to this court. The service of process was made upon a statutory agent required by the laws of the state for that purpose. The defendant demurs to the bill for want of sufficient jurisdiction acquired by the service, and for want of equity, and the cause has been heard upon the demurrer. The jurisdiction is to be measured by that of the state court of chancery. That court is a court of general equity jurisdiction, and has full cognizance of all such cases as this, if any court of equity would have between parties properly before it. As the defendant appeared and demurred, the parties are before the court and the jurisdiction has attached, and there can be no question remaining upon the demurrer except as to the equity of the bill, and that question is to be attended to.

The misrepresentations relied upon to avoid the contract were wholly as to what would be done thereafter, and not as to any past or then present fact. The orator had some insurance upon his life during the running of the policy. His claim now is that it does not amount to so much as the defendant represented it would, and as he expected. The fraud, if there is any, did not exist at the time of the making of the contract, and could not vitiate it. Such fraud would not work backwards....