Fletcher v. New York Life Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 28 September 1882 |
| Citation | 13 F. 526 |
| Parties | FLETCHER v. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. [1] |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
This is a suit upon a policy of insurance upon the life of C. S Alford, deceased, by his executor, Thomas C. Fletcher. Defendant alleges in its answer that it is a foreign corporation; that said Alford made a written application to it for insurance upon his life, and that the application was signed by him, and was attached to and made a part of said policy when issued; that said application contained two false answers to questions material as to the risk, therein printed, and the following clause, viz.:
'And I do hereby agree that the statements and representations contained in the foregoing application and declaration shall be the basis of the contract between me and the said company,-- the truthfulness of which statements and representations I do hereby warrant; and that if the same, or any of them, are in any respect untrue, the policy which may be issued thereon shall be void, and all money which may have been paid on account of such insurance shall be forfeited to said company; and inasmuch as only the officers at the home office of the company in the city of New York have authority to determine whether or not a policy shall issue on any application, and as they act on the written statements and representations referred to, it is expressly understood and agreed that no statements, representations, or information made or given by or to the person soliciting or taking this application for a policy, or to any other person, shall be binding on this company, or in any manner affect its rights unless such statements, representations, or information be reduced to writing and presented to the officers of the company, at the home office, in the above application.' Plaintiff's reply consists, to a considerable extent, of evidentiary matter. The allegations, so far as it is deemed necessary to set them forth here, are substantially as follows, viz.: That the defendant, though a foreign corporation, was, at the time said policy was issued authorized and licensed under the laws of Missouri to transact business in that state; that said application was taken and said policy delivered to said Alford in the city of St. Louis; that the application was taken by certain agents of defendant; that one of them read the questions therein contained, and pretended to write the applicant's answers thereto in the application; that the false answers contained in the application were not made by the applicant, but that he answered the questions to which said false answers were appended truly, and that he did not read said answers over or have them read to him, but signed said application under the impression that his answers had been reduced to writing substantially as made. And in the second part of his reply plaintiff states that after the said application had been signed, defendant's agent took it, but that said Alford neither sent it to any officer of defendant at New York, or authorized any one else to do so; that the policy was shortly afterwards delivered to said Alford, and the premiums collected, and that he, supposing the answers in the application were taken as given, or were written to the satisfaction of defendant, did not read over the copy attached to the policy, or the policy, but was told by said agent on delivering it that it was all right, and that he was insured; that said Alford paid the annual premiums as they fell due, and that they were collected by said agent of defendant, with full knowledge of the aforesaid facts.
To the first part of said reply defendant demurred on the following grounds:
First, that the matters therein set fort as pleaded do not constitute a cause of action against this defendant, nor constitute in law any reply to the new matter set forth in defendant's answer; second, that any issuable facts in said portion of said reply contained are intermixed with statements of evidence and matters wholly irrelevant.
To the second part of said reply defendant demurred on the grounds--
First that the matters therein set forth do not in law constitute any cause of action in pla...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kellogg v. National Protective Ins. Co.
......622;. Davis v. Davis, 305 U.S. 32; Erie R. R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Jackson, 304 U.S. 261; Rosenthal v. N. Y. Life Ins. Co., 304 U.S. 263; Roy v. ...v. Mobile & O. R. C., 319 Mo. 899; N. Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Dodge, 246 U.S. 357, 373; Fletcher v. N. Y. Life. Ins. Co., 13 F. 526; Berry v. Knights Templars & Masons. Life Indem. Co., 46 F. ......
-
Liebing v. Mutual Life Ins. Company
...242 F. 762; Hicks v. Nat. Life, 60 F. 690; Nat. Union v. Marlow, 74 F. 775; Equitable Life Assur. Soc. v. Winning, 58 F. 541; Fletcher v. New York Life, 13 F. 526; Bailey v. Hope Ins. Co., 56 Me. 474; Stevens Raisin Fertilizer Co., 87 Md. 679; Expressman's Assn. v. Hurlock, 91 Md. 585. The ......
-
Shannon v. Georgia State Building & Loan Ass'n
...v. Garner, 20 Texas Civ. App., 516; Martin v. Johnson, 8 L.R.A. 170, S.C. 84 Ga. 481. See the following analogous cases: Fletcher v. N. Y. Life Ins. Co., 13 F. 526, S.C. U.S. 517; Wall v. Eq. Life Co., 32 F. 526; Mutual Life Ins. Co., 40 Mo. App., 281; Western Assurance Co. v. Mary B. Phelp......
-
New York Life Ins. Co. v. Russell, 754.
...contract being agreed to be the home office of said company, in the city of New York. ' Wall v. Assurance Soc., 32 F. 273; Fletcher v. Insurance Co., 13 F. 526; Ehrman Insurance Co., 1 McCrary, 123, 1 F. 471; Berry v. Indemnity Co., 46 F. 439; Assurance Soc. v Clements, 140 U.S. 226, 11 Sup......