Hartford Life Ins Co v. Barber

• Decision Date: 19 November 1917
• Docket Number: Nos. 252,253,s. 252
• Citation: 62 L.Ed. 208,245 U.S. 146,38 S.Ct. 54
• Parties: HARTFORD LIFE INS. CO. v. BARBER (two cases)
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

245 U.S. 146

38 S.Ct. 54

62 L.Ed. 208

HARTFORD LIFE INS. CO.

v BARBER (two cases).

Nos. 252, 253.

Argued Nov. 5 and 6, 1917.

Decided Nov. 19, 1917.

[Syllabus from 146-147 intentionally omitted] Mr. James C. Jones, of St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Charles E. Morrow, of St. Louis, Mo., for defendant in error.

[Arguments of council on 147-148 intentionally omitted.]

Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.

These are suits upon two certificates of qualified life insurance issued to Frank Barber and payable at his death to his wife, the plaintiff—defendant in error here. The defense in both suits was the same; that Barber failed to pay a mortuary assessment levied on January 29, 1910, known as quarterly call No. 126, and that the failure avoided the policies by their terms. It set up further that, in a suit brought by one Dresser on behalf of himself and all certificate holders, including the plaintiff, in the Connecticut Court having jurisdiction over the defendant and the mortuary fund from which alone, by the contract, death losses were payable, it was adjudicated on March 23, 1910, that if a certificate holder failed to pay a mortuary assessment the company could not pay the insurance in case of his death.

At the trial the Connecticut judgment was offered and excluded and the jury were instructed that the defendant must prove that an assessment was made by the directors of the company and that it was not for a larger amount than was necessary to pay death losses up to that time after giving Barber credit for his pro rata share in the mortuary fund; that if there was money on hand in that fund, and unless the defendant had 'so proved,' it could not declare the insurance forfeited on that account. This instruction was in the teeth of the Connecticut adjudica- tion which held that it was proper and reasonable for the company to hold a fund collected in advance in order to enable it to pay losses promptly. The plaintiff recovered judgments and these were sustained by the Supreme Court of Missouri. 269 Mo. 21, 187 S. W. 867. The defendant says that it was denied its constitutional rights by a failure to give due faith and credit to the judgment of the Connecticut Court.

The transactions were of the class before this Court in Hartford Life Ins. Co. v. Ibs, 237 U. S. 662, 35 Sup. Ct. 692, 59 L. Ed. 1165, L. R. A. 1916A, 765, which arose on a similar contract and a failure to pay the call next after the one in question here. In that case the character of the business arrangements was explained and it was decided that the Dresser judgment binds all certificate holders of the class to which Barber belonged. The Missouri Court, indicating some dissatisfaction with the company and the judgments in Connecticut and here, sought to justify a different result by distinctions that seem to us unreal. The first is that at the end of the quarter for which the assessment was levied, that is on December 31, 1909, after deducting all losses in respect of which the assessment was laid, there was still left, of the fund...