Lovell v. St Louis Mutual Life Ins Co

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtBRADLEY
Citation28 L.Ed. 423,4 S.Ct. 390,111 U.S. 264
Decision Date07 April 1884
PartiesLOVELL and another v. ST. LOUIS MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. and others

111 U.S. 264
4 S.Ct. 390
28 L.Ed. 423
LOVELL and another
v.
ST. LOUIS MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. and others.
April 7, 1884.

M. Blair andA. McClain, for appellants.

R. McP. Smith, for appellees.

BRADLEY, J.

This case was commenced by a bill in chancery filed by the appellants, Lovell and wife, citizens of Tennessee, against the St. Louis Mutual Life Insurance Company and the St. Louis Life Insurance Company, for relief in relation to a certain policy of insurance issued by the former company, through an agent at Nashville, Tennessee, to Lovell on his own life, for the sum of $5,000, for the benefit of his wife, and to be paid to her on his death. The policy was dated the twenty-fourth of April, 1868, and stipulated for the payment of an annual premium of $162.14, payable (in the words of the instrument) as follows: 'An annual premium note of $53, and a semi-annual cash premium of $54.57 on the twenty-fourth days of April and October, the

Page 265

first one of said notes, and the first semi-annual cash premium, commencing with the date of this policy.' There was a condition in the policy that if, after the payment of the first three annual premiums, a default should be made in the payment of the annual premiums thereafter to become due, then (in the words of the condition) 'such default shall not work a forfeiture of this policy, but the sum of five thousand dollars, the amount insured, shall be then commuted or reduced to the sum of the annual premiums paid.'

After setting out the policy the bill states the following facts: The premiums called for by the policy were all paid down to and including the twenty-fourth of April, 1873; a new premium note being given at the end of each year, and any dividends due to the insured being credited thereon,—the company being a mutual one. At, or shortly after, the last payment, (which was made to one Foote, agent of the company at Louisville, Kentucky, the agency at Nashville having been discontinued,) Lovell made known to Foote his desire to receive a paid-up policy for what he was entitled to, and a return of his premium note; he and the agent agreeing, as had also been represented by the agent at Nashville, on the issuing of the policy, that all the money he had paid by way of premiums (amounting to $822, less the amount of his outstanding note) would be credited to him, and that he could have a paid-up policy for such amount, as that money, under the regulations of the company, would entitle him to if he had paid it all at once for a paid-up policy. With this view and understanding he surrendered his policy to the agent, to be transmitted to the home office at St. Louis, and exchanged for a paid-up policy in its stead. Lovell being engaged in steam-boating on the Mississippi, gave the matter no further thought, supposing that it would be all right. But, after some time, he was surprised at receiving notice to pay the interest on his note, and on going to his home he found that, instead of a paid-up policy, the original policy had been returned, with an indorsement on the margin in the words and figures following:

'In default of payment of renewal premium due 24th October, 1873, this policy is commuted and reduced to eight hundred and

Page 266

twenty-two dollars, on condition that the interest on outstanding premium notes is paid annually in advance.

M. A. CAMPBELL, Assignee.'

The complainant, Lovell, went to the agent at Louisville and protested against the course of the company, and insisted that he was to have received a paid-up policy and a return of his note; but the agent told him that since the agreement made with him for a paid-up policy the St. Louis Mutual Life Insurance Company had sold out to the Mound City Life Insurance Company, (whose name was afterwards changed to the St. Louis Life Insurance Company,) and that such a thing as issuing to him a paid-up policy, or even restoring or reinstating his policy, was wholly outside of the contract with the Mound City company, and that the policy was now forfeited.

The bill charges that after the original policy was surrendered for exchange as aforesaid, without the knowledge or consent of complainant, the St. Louis Mutual Life Insurance Company sold and transferred its entire assets, name, good will, etc., to the Mound City Life Insurance Company, before any interest had accrued on his premium note. The complainant insists that he has been guilty of no default that ought to work a ferfeiture of his policy; and that the money paid by him on his policy should be refunded to him, with interest, and that his outstanding note should be delivered up to be canceled. The bill further states that there is in the hands of William Morrow, treasurer of the state of Tennessee, $20,000 of state bonds, held as the property of the insurance company, under the laws of Tennessee, as indemnity against loss to citizens of Tennessee on life policies such as that of complainant; he therefore prays for an attachment and an injunction to hold said fund subject to the orders of the court, until the claim of the complainant is satisfied. The bill concludes with a prayer for general relief.

An attachment and injunction were issued as prayed, and the defendants appeared and answered the bill. The answer does not question the material averments of the bill, and admits that the affairs of the St. Louis Mutual Life

Page 267

Insurance Company having become greatly embarrassed, on the seventh of October, 1873, the superintendent of the insurance department of the state of Missouri filed in the circuit court of St. Louis county a petition setting forth that the company was insolvent, and praying for an injunction against its carrying on the business further, and that such injunction was issued; and that, in due course, the court pronounced the company insolvent, and restrained it from reinsuring its risks without the order and consent of the court. What further took place in reference to the affairs of the company is shown by the following extracts from the joint answer of the two companies; that is to say:

'In the progress of said matter, said Frank P. Blair, superintendent as aforesaid, on December 13, 1873, filed his motion in said cause, praying said court to order said company to reinsure all the risks held by it in the Mound City Life Insurance Company upon the terms set forth in said motion, and allow him to dismiss his suit as aforesaid. Said terms were that said St. Louis Mutual Life Insurance Company should transfer to said Mound City Life Insurance Company all of its assets, real, personal, or mixed, wheresoever situated, and that in consideration of said transfer said Mound City Life Insurance Company, whose name was afterwards changed to the St. Louis Life Insurance Company, should reinsure all risks of said St. Louis Mutual Life Insurance Company, and assume all its liabilities and should for these purposes increase its capital stock to the sum of $1,000,000, such increase to be secured and paid according to the laws of the state of Missouri, and to the satisfaction of said superintendent. Said motion was duly considered by said court, and was ultimately granted. * * *

'No policy-holder of said St. Louis Mutual Life Insurance Company and no stockholder therein appeared in opposition thereto, or made any objections, and said arrangement was accordingly fully consummated and carried out according to the terms of said motion.

'And said St. Louis Life Insurance Company in good faith undertook, and is now undertaking, so to carry out said arrangement, and to perform...

To continue reading

Request your trial
124 practice notes
  • McCullough v. Clinch-Mitchell Const. Co., No. 9810.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • May 22, 1934
    ...38 L. Ed. 814; Hinckley v. Pittsburgh B. Steel Co., 121 U. S. 264, 7 S. Ct. 875, 30 L. Ed. 967; Lovell v. St. Louis Mutual L. Ins. Co., 111 U. S. 264, 274, 4 S. Ct. 390, 28 L. Ed. 423; United States v. Behan, 110 U. S. 338, 344, 4 S. Ct. 81, 28 L. Ed. 168; Chicago v. Tilley, 103 U. S. 146, ......
  • International Co. v. Occidental Life Ins. Co., No. 11085.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • August 11, 1938
    ...the then value of his policy with the right to participate pro rata in the assets in receivership. Lovell v. St. Louis Mut. Life Ins. Co., 111 U.S. 264, 4 S.Ct. 390, 28 L.Ed. 423; Carr v. Hamilton, 129 U.S. 252, 9 S.Ct. 295, 32 L.Ed. 669; Ingersoll v. Missouri Valley Life Ins. Co., C.C., 37......
  • Combs v. International Ins. Co., No. 01-6493.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • January 6, 2004
    ...See, e.g., N.Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Viglas, 297 U.S. 672, 56 S.Ct. 615, 80 L.Ed. 971 (1936); Lovell v. St. Louis Mut. Life Ins. Co., 111 U.S. 264, 4 S.Ct. 390, 28 L.Ed. 423 (1884); Caminetti v. Manierre, 23 Cal.2d 94, 142 P.2d 741 (1943); Scott v. Life & Cas. Ins. Co., 34 Ga.App. 479, 129 S.E.......
  • Bollenback v. Continental Cas. Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • May 25, 1966
    ...has actually received under the contract. Watson v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co., supra; Lovell v. St. Louis Mut. Life Ins. Co., 111 U.S. 264, 274, 4 S.Ct. [243 Or. 519] 390, 395, 28 L.Ed. 423, 427 (1884). Defendant contends plaintiff received the value of the protection for the ten y......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
124 cases
  • McCullough v. Clinch-Mitchell Const. Co., No. 9810.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • May 22, 1934
    ...38 L. Ed. 814; Hinckley v. Pittsburgh B. Steel Co., 121 U. S. 264, 7 S. Ct. 875, 30 L. Ed. 967; Lovell v. St. Louis Mutual L. Ins. Co., 111 U. S. 264, 274, 4 S. Ct. 390, 28 L. Ed. 423; United States v. Behan, 110 U. S. 338, 344, 4 S. Ct. 81, 28 L. Ed. 168; Chicago v. Tilley, 103 U. S. 146, ......
  • International Co. v. Occidental Life Ins. Co., No. 11085.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • August 11, 1938
    ...the then value of his policy with the right to participate pro rata in the assets in receivership. Lovell v. St. Louis Mut. Life Ins. Co., 111 U.S. 264, 4 S.Ct. 390, 28 L.Ed. 423; Carr v. Hamilton, 129 U.S. 252, 9 S.Ct. 295, 32 L.Ed. 669; Ingersoll v. Missouri Valley Life Ins. Co., C.C., 37......
  • Combs v. International Ins. Co., No. 01-6493.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • January 6, 2004
    ...See, e.g., N.Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Viglas, 297 U.S. 672, 56 S.Ct. 615, 80 L.Ed. 971 (1936); Lovell v. St. Louis Mut. Life Ins. Co., 111 U.S. 264, 4 S.Ct. 390, 28 L.Ed. 423 (1884); Caminetti v. Manierre, 23 Cal.2d 94, 142 P.2d 741 (1943); Scott v. Life & Cas. Ins. Co., 34 Ga.App. 479, 129 S.E.......
  • Bollenback v. Continental Cas. Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • May 25, 1966
    ...has actually received under the contract. Watson v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co., supra; Lovell v. St. Louis Mut. Life Ins. Co., 111 U.S. 264, 274, 4 S.Ct. [243 Or. 519] 390, 395, 28 L.Ed. 423, 427 (1884). Defendant contends plaintiff received the value of the protection for the ten y......
  • 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