Lee v. Travelers' Ins. Co. Of Hartford, 13888.

• Citation: 175 S.E. 429
• Decision Date: 19 July 1934
• Docket Number: No. 13888.,13888.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Parties: LEE. v. TRAVELERS' INS. CO. OF HARTFORD, CONN.

175 S.E. 429

LEE.
v.
TRAVELERS' INS. CO. OF HARTFORD, CONN.

No. 13888.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

July 19, 1934.

[175 S.E. 430]

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Greenville County; G. B. Greene, Judge.

Action by Eliza H. Lee against the Travelers' Insurance Company, of Hartford, Conn. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

W. G. Sirrine, of Greenville, for appellant.

Mann & Plyler, of Greenville, for respondent.

BONHAM, Justice.

January 18, 1897, the Travelers' Insurance Company issued to Joseph Lee its policy No. 90668, whereby it insured the life of Joseph Lee in the sum of $1,000, with his wife, Eliza H. Lee, as the named beneficiary. The policy was of the character known as a 20-year premium policy; that is to say, at the end of 20 years if the annual premiums have been duly paid, the policy becomes a paid-up one, and the amount of the insurance becomes payable to the named beneficiary upon the death of the insured.

In January, 1922, the company lent to Joseph Lee the sum of $526; the loan to mature January 18, 1923. The loan was made upon the security of the policy, and was evidenced by a written contract. It was not paid on maturity, but was carried on, and interest paid until January 18, 1931. The insured died September 15, 1931. Notice of the death of Joseph Lee was given the company, and upon its failure to settle the claim this action was brought.

The complaint alleges the issuance of the policy and the nature of it; the death of the insured; the notice given the company thereof; the demand for payment and the refusal and neglect of the company to make payment.

The answer of the company admits the issuance of the policy and the death of the insured; denies that it is indebted to the plaintiff in the manner and to the amount claimed; alleges that when a loan was made to Joseph Lee, the policy was thereby modified and its value decreased; that the interest was not paid when due, and Joseph Lee was entitled to receive in full settlement cash to the amount of $166.54, and the cancellation of his debt, or a paid-up policy for $240, which Joseph Lee accepted; it admits that it is due the plaintiff Eliza H. Lee the sum of $240, the amount of the paid-up policy. It admits that at the time of his death Joseph Lee held the policy referred to, and that all the premiums thereon had been paid; that Joseph Lee and Eliza H. Lee, beneficiary named in the policy, applied for and were granted a loan for $526 upon the security of the policy; that a loan agreement was made and signed by the Lees, which contained a number of stipulations with reference to the rights of the parties, and certain items modifying the policy; that Lee failed to pay the interest due January 18, 1931; that April 6, 1931, defendant notified Lee that he was in default, the thirty days of grace allowed by the contract having expired, and the defendant offered to extend the time of payment of the interest until May 6, 1931; that in the same letter it offered to increase the loan in order to pay the

[175 S.E. 431]

interest, or to pay Lee the cash equity he had in the policy if he would surrender it, and accept cancellation of the debt; that along with the letter of April 6 was an indorsement, called a "rider, " which Lee was instructed to attach to his policy, which showed the cash value of the policy to be $692.54, the amount of the...