Mutual Life Ins Co of New York v. Liebing 21 24, 1922

• Decision Date: 29 May 1922
• Docket Number: No. 215,215
• Citation: 42 S.Ct. 467,259 U.S. 209,66 L.Ed. 900
• Parties: MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK v. LIEBING. Argued April 21-24, 1922
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

259 U.S. 209

42 S.Ct. 467

66 L.Ed. 900

MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK

v LIEBING.

No. 215.

Argued April 21-24, 1922.

Decided May 29, 1922.

Messrs. Wm. Marshall Bullitt, of Louisville, Ky., Frederick D. McKenney, of Washington, D. C., John H. Holliday, of St. Louis, Mo., and Frederick L. Allen, of New York City, for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 210-211 intentionally omitted] Mr. James J. O'Donohoe, of St. Louis, Mo., for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a suit to recover upon a policy insuring the life of one Blees, issued to him and subsequently assigned by him to his wife, now Mrs. Liebing, the plaintiff (defendant in error). The contract was made on September 29, 1901, by the defendant (the plaintiff in error), in Missouri, by a delivery of the policy to Blees in Macon, Missouri, where he lived. Three annual premiums were paid. After the fourth was due, within the time allowed, Blees and his wife signed an application for a loan of $9,550 and sent it with the policy to the defendant's agency at St. Louis, by which it was forwarded to New York. The application followed the terms of the policy, which agreed that after it had been in force three years the company would lend amounts within the cash surrender value, upon certain conditions, the policy being assigned as security. Following these terms the application deducted from the cash to be received the fourth annual premium and an adjustment of interest, leaving the balance to be paid $4,790.50. The loan was to be for one year and the application authorized the company upon default to cancel the policy and apply the customary cash surrender consideration to the payment of the loan. The application was approved in New York and a check for $4,790.50 to the order of Mr. and Mrs. Blees, with a receipt for the fourth premium, was sent from New York to the company's manager in St. Louis and by him forwarded to a local agent who delivered the documents to Blees. The check was endorsed and paid. A year later when repayment was due it was not made. Thereupon on December 4, 1905, the company cancelled the policy and applied the surrender value to the loan, which was of equal amount, leaving a deficit of $74.57 interest. Blees died on September 8, 1906, and upon inquiry from Mrs. Blees the company notified her of what had been done. Its action had been in accordance with the terms of its contract and the law of New York. But some years later, Mrs. Blees, now Mrs. Liebing, brought the present...