Dunn v. Nat'l Life Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 11 March 1898
• Parties: DUNN v. NATIONAL LIFE INS. CO.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

39 A. 1075

69 N.H. 224

DUNN

v. NATIONAL LIFE INS. CO.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Belknap.

March 11, 1898.

Exceptions from Belknap county.

Assumpsit by Charles A. Dunn, administrator of the estate of Nellie E. Crockett, deceased, against the National Life Insurance Company. A nonsuit was denied, and defendant brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.

Assumpsit upon an insurance policy on the life of Nellie E. Crockett. Verdict for the plaintiff. The policy, dated December 24, 1895, provides that a premium of $13.05 shall be paid to the defendant on or before the 24th days of December, March, June, and September in each year during the continuance of the contract, until twenty annual premiums have been paid; that "failure to pay any premium, or any part thereof, * * * when due, shall cancel the insurance" and the contract; that "all premiums are payable at the home office, in Montpelier, Vermont, but will be accepted when paid to agents of the company in exchange for its receipts, signed by its president or secretary"; and that "agents are not authorized to extend the time of payment of any premium, and cannot give credit, make, alter, or discharge contracts, nor waive forfeitures." The plaintiff's evidence tended to show that the company had a general agent at Manchester, through whom all business with its policy holders in this state was transacted; that A. T. Roberts was a sub-agent to solicit applications for insurance, and collect premiums upon policies issued upon such applications, receiving for his services a percentage upon the premiums collected; that receipts for premiums were made out at the home office, a month in advance of the times when the premiums became due, and were sent to the general agent; that the receipts pertaining to Roberts' sub-agency were countersigned by the general agent and forwarded to Roberts; that on the 10th day of each month the general agent, and Roberts, through him, reported to the company the collections made during the preceding month; and that the company had no means of knowing whether the premiums were paid when due except from these reports. The policy in suit was procured through Roberts. Evidence introduced by the plaintiff, subject to exception, tended to show that when Roberts solicited the application for the insurance, and also after the delivery of the policy, he told the insured he would call upon her to collect the premium, and she must be sure to have it ready for him; if he did not call by the day it was due, it would make no difference, it could be paid to him any time within 30 days, and he would call in season; and if she died within the 30 days the insurance less the premium, would be paid by the company; also that Roberts had made similar statements to other policy holders; and that, in the case of one, remittances for premiums several days past due had been accepted by the general agent without question, several times. Roberts testified that he had no authority to collect premiums after they were overdue. The insured lived in Laconia, and could not read or write. Roberts did not live in Laconia or have an office there. The insured had the money in readiness to pay the premium due March 24, 1896, and kept it on hand for the purpose until about a...