Insurance Company v. Young Administrator

Citation90 U.S. 85,23 L.Ed. 152,23 Wall. 85
PartiesINSURANCE COMPANY v. YOUNG'S ADMINISTRATOR
Decision Date01 October 1874
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

'The agreement is mutual (see application and policy), that unless the premium is paid on or before the day it becomes due the policy is forfeited and void. Agents are not authorized to make, alter, or discharge contracts or waive forfeitures. Payments of premiums to agents are not valid unless receipts be given signed by the president, secretary, cashier, or actuary. When receipts are sent to agents for delivery, such agents shall countersign the same as evidence of payment to them. All premiums are due and payable at the office in New York. For the convenience of the assured they may be made to an agent, but only upon the production of the receipt above specified.

'F. S. WINSTON.

'President.'

On the 8th of August, 1867, that is to say, six days after the policy was received by the agent, Homans, he wrote to Young, addressing him at Vallejo, California, as follows:

'SAN FRANCISCO, August 8th, 1867.

'McPHERSON YOUNG, ESQ.,

'Vallejo, California.

'DEAR SIR: Your policy of insurance with the Mutual Life Insurance Company has arrived. Please inform me whether I shall send it to you at Vallejo, or if you will call and get it when you are in the city.

'H. S. HOMANS,

'General Agent.'

The case, as found, continued:

'But whether said note was delivered to or received by said Young, or when forwarded, and in what manner, does not appear from the evidence. No notice of the acceptance of said application, or of the issue and arrival of the said policy is shown to have been delivered to or received by said Young, nor was any demand made upon him for further payment, nor any receipt or notice requiring payment presented to him.'

Young was shot at Vallejo on the 21st of August, 1867;1 and removed on the next day to an hospital in San Francisco, where he died on the 20th of September following; having, from the time that he was shot, been physically and mentally unable to attend to any business. After his death, the agent wrote 'Cancel; dead,' on the policy, and sent it with the two receipts of April 6th and July 6th for premium, attached to the policy and uncancelled, and the note for $99.30 which Young had given to the agent June 5th, 1867, to the office in New York, where the officers, on the 21st of October, cancelled the policy by tearing off the seal and cutting out the name of the president. The note for the $99.30 remained in the company's hands unpaid, but was never surrendered or offered to be surrendered to Young. The word 'cancelled' was written across its face in lead, but by whom did not appear. No subsequent premium was ever demanded by the company or paid.

Administration having been granted on the estate of Young, the administrator sued the company.

The declaration alleged that on the 5th of June, A. D. 1867, the company caused to be made a policy of assurance, purporting that, in the consideration of $99.30, then paid, being the first quarterly annual premium for the sum of $5000 of the life of McPherson Young, payable at forty-five or death, and his promise and undertaking to continue to pay thereafter to the said company, the defendant, like quarterly payments of $99.30 during the term of ten years thereafter, if he should so long live, they did assure, and agree, to and with the said McPherson, that they would pay unto him, upon his attaining the age of forty-five years, or to his executors, administrators, or assigns, in case he should die before attaining that age, the sum of $5000. And that the said McPherson, in all things, performed the agreement, and all the conditions and promises which by the terms of the said policy were by him to be performed.

The defendant pleaded the general issue, and also two special pleas:

1st. That the policy was issued and delivered to the deceased on the 6th of April, 1867; that the premium therein agreed to be paid was not paid, and had...

To continue reading

Request your trial
104 cases
  • Field v. Missouri Life Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • August 26, 1930
    ... ... by Mary S. Field against the Missouri State Life Insurance ... Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals ... Co. , ... 73 Mo. 371; Mutual L. Ins. Co. v. Young, ... Adm'r , 90 U.S. 85, 23 Wall. 85, 23 L.Ed. 152; ... Commercial Ins ... ...
  • Aetna Indem. Co. v. J.R. Crowe Coal & Mining Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • April 27, 1907
    ... ... 547] ... W. B ... Homer (Botsford, Deatherage & Young, on the brief), for ... plaintiff in error ... W. F ... Circuit Judge ... The ... mining company brought its action against the indemnity ... company to recover on a ... executed by defendant extending the insurance so as to cover ... the year ending June 1, 1903. A like extension ... Insurance Co. v ... Young's Administrator, 23 Wall. 85, 23 L.Ed. 152; ... Minneapolis, etc., Ry. Co. v. Columbus ... ...
  • Binghampton Trust Company v. Auten
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • June 16, 1900
    ...Q. B. Div. 640; 1 C. P. Div. 87; 2 Kent's Comm. 477; 6 Wend. 103; 32 Md. 196; 48 N.H. 14; 47 Ark. 525; 1 B. & Ald. 681; 1 H. L. Gas. 381; 23 Wall. 85; 61 Ark. 1; 60 F. 693. Lex contractus governs as to validity and interpretation of contract. 7 Ark. 231; 20 ib. 356; 25 ib. 261; 40 ib. 423. ......
  • Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association v. Farmer
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • November 5, 1898
    ... ... solicitor and examining physician were the agents of the ... company, and not of the insured, in the preparation and ... forwarding of the ... is a suit to recover on a policy of life insurance, and the ... defenses are several, and the first in order is that the ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • THE CORPORATE INSANITY DEFENSE.
    • United States
    • December 22, 2020
    ...(Guenther Roth & Claus Wittich eds., 1978) (arguing that corporations are not agents). (90) Insurance Company v. Young's Administrator, 90 U.S. 85, 107 (91) See Mihailis E. Diamantis, The Extended Corporate Mind: When Corporations Use AI to Break the Law, 98 N.C. L. REV. 893, 899 (2020)......

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