Equitable Life Assur Sc of the United States v. Pettus

• Decision Date: 11 May 1891
• Citation: 140 U.S. 226,35 L.Ed. 497,11 S.Ct. 822
• Parties: EQUITABLE LIFE ASSUR. SC. OF THE UNITED STATES v. PETTUS
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

140 U.S. 226

11 S.Ct. 822

35 L.Ed. 497

EQUITABLE LIFE ASSUR. SC. OF THE UNITED STATES v. PETTUS.

May 11, 1891.

[Statement of Case from pages 226-231 intentionally omitted] Henry Hitchcock, Geo. A. Madill, and G. A. Finkelnburg, for plaintiff in error.

L. C. Krauthoff, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice GRAY, after stating the facts as above, delivered the opinion of the court.

Upon the question whether the contract sued on was made in New York or in Missouri, there is nothing in the record, except the policy and application, the petition and answer, by which the facts appear to have been as follows: The assured was a resident of Missouri, and the application for the policy was signed in Missouri. The policy, executed at the defendant's office in New York, provides that 'the contract between the parties hereto is completely setforth in this policy and the application therefor, taken together.' The application declares that the contract 'shall not take effect until the first premium shall have been actually paid during the life of the person herein proposed for assurance.' The petition alleges that that premium and two annual premiums were paid in Missouri. The answer expressly admits the payment of the three premiums, and, by not controverting that they were paid in Missouri, admits that fact also, if material. Rev. St. Mo. 1879, § 3545. The petition further alleges that the policy was delivered in Missouri; and the answer admits that the policy was, 'at the request of the said Wall, transmitted to the state of Missouri, and was delivered to said Wall in said state.' If this form of admission does not imply that the policy was at the request of Wall transmitted to another person, perhaps the company's agent, in Missouri, and by him there delivered to Wall, it is quite consistent with such a state of facts; and there is no evidence whatever, or even averment, that the policy was transmitted by mail directly to Wall, or that the company signified to Wall its acceptance of his application in any other way than by the delivery of the policy to him in Missouri. Upon this record, the conclusion is inevitable that the policy never became a completed contract, binding either party to it, until the delivery of the policy and the payment of the first premium in Missouri; and, consequently, that the policy is a Missouri contract, and governed by the laws of Missouri.

By the Revised Statutes of Missouri of 1879, in force when this policy was made, it was enacted as follows: By section 5983, 'no policy of insurance on life, hereafter issued by any life insurance company authorized to do business in this state, shall, after payment upon it of two full annual premiums, be forfeited or become void by reason of the non-payment of premium thereon; but it shall be subject to the following rules of commutation, to-wit.' The net value of the policy is to be computed, and the insurance is to continue in force for...