Hathaway v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York
Decision Date | 22 January 1900 |
Citation | 99 F. 534 |
Parties | HATHAWAY et al. v. MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK. |
Court | United States Circuit Court, District of Washington, Northern Division |
George H. Durham, R. W .Emmons, and V. H. Faben, for plaintiffs.
Struve Allen, Hughes & McMicken, for defendant.
This is an action by the beneficiaries named in a life insurance policy issued by the defendant.By a written stipulation, a jury was waived, and the case has been tried and submitted upon the pleadings, evidence, and arguments; and, upon due consideration, I find that the policy was issued by the defendant at its office in the city of New York on the 26th day of January, 1892, insuring the life of Homer M. Hathaway of Pomeroy, in this state, for the sum of $3,000, in favor of his wife and son, who are the plaintiffs in this action.The contract is a New York contract, to be performed in the state of New York, and as to all the rights and liabilities of the parties the law of the state of New York must govern.The policy declares that the Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York will pay at its home office, in the city of New York unto Caroline L. Hathaway and Horace C. Hathaway, son of Homer M. Hathaway, their executors, administrators, or assigns, $3,000, upon acceptance of satisfactory proofs at its home office of the death of said Homer M. Hathaway during the continuance of the policy, upon specified conditions, and subject to the provisions, requirements, and benefits stated on the back of the policy.The annual premium of $113.10 was required to be paid on the delivery of the policy, and thereafter to the company, at its home office, in the city of New York, on the 26th day of January of every year during the continuance of the contract, until premiums for 20 full years should be fully paid to said company.This contract is not an assurance for a single year, with a provision for renewal from year to year by paying the annual premiums; but it is the kind of a policy which the supreme court of the United States, in the case of Insurance Co. v. Statham,93 U.S. 24-37, 23 L.Ed. 789, declared to be 'an entire contract of assurance for life, subject to discontinuance and forfeiture for nonpayment of any of the stipulated premiums. ' When the contract was made, a statute of New York, viz. chapter 321 of the Laws of New York for the year 1877, prescribed that no life insurance company doing business in the state of New York should have power to declare forfeited or lapsed any policy thereafter issued or renewed, by reason of nonpayment of any annual premium or interest, or any portion thereof, unless a prescribed notice should first be given in a prescribed manner, and that payment made within the time limited by such notice should be taken to be in full compliance with the requirements of the policy in respect to the payment of the premium or interest, notwithstanding any contrary stipulation contained in the policy, and further providing that 'no such policy shall in any case be forfeited or declared forfeited or lapsed until the expiration of 30 days after the mailing of such notice. ' In the year 1892 there was a complete revision of the insurance law of the state of New York, and the new statute contained a substitute for the section in the law of 1877, prescribing the notice to be given as a prerequisite to the forfeiture of a policy for nonpayment of premiums.That section of the law of 1892 is by its terms applicable only to policies subsequently issued or renewed.By another section, chapter 321 of the Laws of 1877 is declared to be repealed.Another section contains the following saving clause: 'The repeal of a law, or any part of it specified in the annexed schedule, shall not affect or impair any act done, or right accruing, accrued, or acquired, or penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred prior to Oct. 1, 1892, under or by virtue of the laws so repealed, but the same shall be enjoyed, asserted, enforced, prosecuted or inflicted, as fully and to the same extent as if such laws had not been repealed.'
Another section provides that the provisions of the new law, as far as they are substantially the same as the laws existing on September 30, 1892, shall be construed as a continuation of such laws, modified or amended according to the language employed, and not as new enactments.
It is my opinion that the rights of the parties under the policy of insurance in suit were not affected or changed by the new legislation of 1892.Conceding that the statute of 1877 prescribing the notice to be given was repealed, still there was no interval of time intervening after the repeal of that law, and before the substituted section became effective within which the insurance company could have claimed a forfeiture of the policy for nonpayment of the premium; and under the law of 1892 the policy could not be forfeited for nonpayment of the...
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
The Bank Savings Life Insurance Company v. Baker
...Postal Life Ins. Co., 226 N.Y. 363, 123 N.E. 750, and is the latest New York case on the point we are here considering. In Hathaway v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 99 F. 534, United States circuit court of Washington held that under a life policy, issued in New York while the laws of 1877 were in ......
-
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. French
... ... In ... the case of Continental Insurance Co. of New York v ... Pearce, 39 Kan. 396, 18 P. 291, 7 Am. St. Rep. 557, the ... 33 Colo. 387, 80 P. 1038; Welch v. Bennett, 39 Ind ... 136; Hathaway v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York (C ... C.) 99 F. 534 (dealing with ... ...
- Volk v. B.F. Sturtevant Co.