Insurance Company v. Wolef

Decision Date01 October 1877
Citation24 L.Ed. 387,95 U.S. 326
PartiesINSURANCE COMPANY v. WOLEF
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri.

The Globe Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, on the 5th of November, 1869, issued to Eliza Garber a policy of insurance for $5,000 upon the life of her husband, commencing on the 1st of that month. The premium was payable annually on the 1st of November. The policy stipulated for the payment of the amount of the insurance within sixty days after due notice and proof of the death of the insured, subject, however, to certain express conditions. One of these conditions provided, that, if the premiums were not paid on or before the days mentioned for their payment, the company should not be liable for the sum insured, or any part of it, and that the policy should cease and determine. Another condition provided, that, if the insured resided in any part of the United States south of the 33d degree of north latitude, except in California, between the 1st of July and the 1st of November, without the consent of the company previously given in writing, the policy should be null and void. And the policy declared that agents of the company were not authorized to make, alter, or discharge contracts, or waive forfeitures.

The insured died at the city of New Orleans on the 11th of November, 1872. Between the 1st of July and the 1st of November of that year he had resided at that city, which is south of the 33d degree of north latitude, without the previous consent in writing of the company; and the annual premium due on the first of that month was not paid on or before that day. Due notice and proof of his death having been given to the company, and payment by it refused, suit was brought by Mrs. Garber in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, whence it was removed, on the petition of the company, to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, and the cause removed here by writ of error. Mrs. Garber died and Wolff, her executor, was made the defendant in error.

The other facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. John W. Noble for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. Montgomery Blair, contra.

MR. JUSTICE FIELD delivered the opinion of the court.

By the residence of the insured within the prohibited district of country during the period designated in the policy without the previous consent of the company, and the failure of the assured to pay the annual premium when it became due, the policy, by its express terms, was forfeited, and the company released from liability, unless the forfeiture was waived by the action of the company, or of its agents authorized to represent it in that respect.

The waiver of the forfei ure for the non-payment of the premium due on the 1st of November, 1872, is alleged on the ground that the premium was subsequently paid to an agent of the company, he delivering its receipt for the same, signed by its secretary, and countersigned by the manager and cashier of the local office, the plaintiff contending that the company, by its previous general course of dealing with its agents, and its practice with respect to the policy in suit, had authorized the premiums to be paid and the agent to receive the same after they became due, and thus had waived any right to a strict compliance with the terms of the policy as to the payment of premiums.

The waiver of the forfeiture arising from the residence within the prohibited district between the 1st of July and November, without the previous consent of the company, is also alleged from the subsequent payment of the premium and its receipt by the local agent, the plaintiff contending that the premium was received with knowledge by the agent of the previous residence of the insured within the prohibited district.

It appears from the record that the deceased was taken sick with the yellow fever at New Orleans, on the 6th or 7th of November, 1872, and died on the 11th of the month, between the hours of eleven and twelve in the forenoon. On the previous day a telegram was sent by Mrs. Garber from New Orleans to a gentleman in St. Louis, directing the latter to go to the agency of the company in that city, at which the policy was issued, and pay the premium due on the first of the month. Accordingly, on the following morning, at about nine o'clock, the premium was paid by this gentleman, and a renewal receipt was thereupon delivered to him. This renewal receipt was dated in New York, and signed by the secretary of the company. It not only acknowledged the receipt of the premium, but it continued the policy in force for another year. The practice of the company was to send to its agents in St. Louis receipts in this form, signed by its secretary, to be countersigned by the local manager and cashier before being used. The receipt given was thus countersigned. The payment was made in the present case to a boy in the office of the agent, and by him the renewal receipt was delivered. It was his habit to receive premiums and deliver the proper renewal receipt in the absence of the agent. In this case the money was given by him on the latter's coming to the office the same morning. The agent credited the amount to the company in his semi-monthly account transmitted to the home office. The gentleman who paid the premium was not aware at the time that the insured was sick,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
235 cases
  • Cohen v. Home Ins., Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Delaware
    • 8 de março de 1918
    ... 111 A. 264 31 Del. 51 DAVID COHEN, plaintiff below, plaintiff in error v. THE HOME INSURANCE COMPANY a corporation of the State of New York, defendant below, defendant in error Supreme Court ... ...
  • U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Miller
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • 20 de janeiro de 1931
    ... ... Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant ...          Affirmed ...          Hite ... The United States ... Fidelity & Guaranty Company issued to him a liability ... insurance contract with omnibus coverage "to any person ... legally operating the automobile." The contract ... ...
  • Gold Issue Min. & Mill. Co. v. Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 24 de março de 1916
    ...N. Y. Supp. 687; Ins. Co. v. Raddin, 120 U. S. 195, 7 Sup. Ct. 500, 30 L. Ed. 644; Baker v. Ins. Co. (C. C.) 77 Fed. 550; Ins. Co. v. Wolff, 95 U. S. 326, 24 L. Ed. 387; Ins. Co. v. Freeman, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 632, 47 S. W. We are therefore of the opinion that under the great weight of autho......
  • Co. Lane v. Parsons, Rich & Co. (In re Millers)
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • 12 de janeiro de 1906
    ...meaning as soon as they are invoked in cases between the parties to a contract of insurance. Mr. Justice Field in Insurance Co. v. Wolff, 95 U. S. 326, 24 L. Ed. 387, said: ‘The doctrine of waiver, as asserted against insurance companies to avoid the strict enforcement of conditions contain......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT