McMaster v. New York Life Ins. Co., 1,202.

Decision Date11 December 1899
Docket Number1,202.
PartiesMcMASTER v. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

[Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted]

This was an action brought by the plaintiff in error, Fred. A McMaster, administrator of the estate of Frank E. McMaster, deceased, against the defendant in error, the New York Life Insurance Company, upon five policies of insurance, of $1,000 each, upon the life of Frank E. McMaster. The defense was that the insurance had ceased before he died, on January 18, 1895, because he had failed to pay the annual premiums due on December 12, 1894. The policies were dated on December 18, 1893, and contained these provisions: 'This contract is made in consideration of the written application for this policy, and of the agreements, statements, and warranties thereof, which are hereby made a part of this contract, and in further consideration of the sum of twenty-one dollars and . . . cents, to be paid in advance, and of the payment of a like sum on the twelfth day of December in every year thereafter during the continuance of this policy. * * * If any premium is not thus paid on or before the day when due, then (except as hereinafter otherwise provided) this policy shall become void, and all payments previously made shall remain the property of the company. After this policy shall have been in force three months, a grace of one month will be allowed in payment of subsequent premiums, subject to an interest charge of 5 per cent. per annum for the number of days during which the premium remains due and unpaid. ' The applications for these policies were in writing, and were dated on December 12, 1893, and contained this agreement: 'I do hereby agree as follows: * * * (2) That inasmuch as only the officers at the home office of said company, in the city of New York, have authority to determine whether or not a policy shall issue on any application, and as they act on the written statements and representations referred to, no statements, representations, promises, or information made or given by or to the person soliciting or taking this application for a policy, or by or to any other person, shall be binding on said company, or in any manner affect its rights, unless such statements, representations, promises, or information be reduced to writing, and presented to the officers of said company, at the home office, in this application. ' After the applicant had signed the applications, the agent who solicited them wrote into each of them, without the knowledge of the applicant, 'Please date the policy same as application;' and copies of the applications, containing this interlineation, were attached to the policies which were delivered to the insured on December 26, 1893, when he paid his first annual premiums. He died on January 18, 1895, and the only question in the case was whether or not the second annual premiums, which he never paid, became due before December 18, 1894.

The court below tried the case without a jury, made special findings of the facts, and dismissed the action. 90 F. 40. The findings of facts, so far as they are material to the question at issue, were as follows: '(3) That in December, 1893, F. W. Smith, an agent for the New York Life Insurance Company, residing at Sioux City, Iowa, solicited Frank E. McMaster to insure his life in that company, and, as an inducement to taking the insurance, pressed upon McMaster the provision adopted by the company, and set forth in the circulars issued by the company, and printed on the back of the policies issued by the company, under the heading 'Benefits and Provisions Referred to in This Policy,' in the following words: 'After this policy shall have been in force three months, a grace of one month will be allowed in payment of subsequent premiums, subject to an interest charge of five per cent. per annum for the number of days during which the premium remains due and unpaid. During said month of grace the unpaid premium, with interest as above, remains an indebtedness due the company, and in the event of death during the said month this indebtedness will be deducted from the amount of the insurance.' (4) Relying on the benefits of this provision, and in the belief that if he accepted a policy of insurance upon his life from the New York Life Insurance Company, paying the premiums thereon annually, the company could not assert the right of forfeiture until thirteen months had elapsed since the last payment of the annual premium, the said Frank E. McMaster signed an application for insurance in said company, dated December 12, 1893, of the form which is made part of the policies sued on, and attached to the petition; the same being made part of this finding of facts. (5) In the application, when signed by Frank E. McMaster, it was provided that the amount of insurance applied for was the sum of $5,000, to be evidenced by five policies, for $1,000 each, on the ordinary life table; the premium to be payable annually. (6) There now appears on the face of the application, interlined in ink, the words, 'Please date policy same as application.' These words were not in the application when it was signed by McMaster, but after the signing thereof they were written into the application by F. W. Smith, the agent of the New York Life Insurance Company, without the knowledge or assent of Frank E. McMaster, and were so written in by the agent in order to secure to the agent a bonus which the company allowed to agents for business secured during the month of December, 1893; and it does not appear that Frank E. McMaster ever knew that these words had been written into the application, and it affirmatively appears that he had no knowledge thereof when the application was forwarded to the home office of the company, and was acted on by the company. (7) By the express understanding had between F. W. Smith, the agent of the New York Life Insurance Company, and Frank E. McMaster, when the application for insurance was signed it was agreed that the first year's premium was to be paid by McMaster upon the delivery to him of the policies, and that the contract of insurance was not to take effect until the policies were delivered. (8) The defendant company, at its home office in New York City, upon receipt of the application, determined to grant the insurance applied for, and issued five policies, each for the sum of $1,000, dated December 18, 1893, and reciting on the face thereof that the annual premium on each policy was $21, and forwarded the same to its agent, F. W. Smith, at Sioux City, Iowa, for delivery to Frank E. McMaster. These five policies are in the form of the one attached to the petition in this case, which is hereby made part of this finding of fact, and each policy contains the recital: 'This contract is made in consideration of the written application for this policy, and of the agreements, statements, and warranties thereof, which are hereby made a part of this contract, and in further consideration of the sum of twenty-one dollars and . . . cents, to be paid in advance, and of the payment of a like sum on the twelfth day of December in every year thereafter during the continuance of this policy.' (9) The five policies, inclosed in envelopes, on or about December 26, 1893, were taken by F. W. Smith, the agent of the defendant company, to the office of Frank E. McMaster, who asked the agent if the policies were as represented, and if they would insure him for the period of 13 months, to which the agent replied that they did so insure him; and thereupon McMaster paid the agent the full first annual premium, or the sum of $21, on each policy, and, without reading the policies, he received them and put them away. The agent did not in any way attempt to prevent McMaster from reading the policies, and he had the full opportunity for reading them, but in fact did not read them, and accepted them on the statement of the agent of the company, as hereinabove set forth. (10) That not later than November 17, 1894, notice was sent to Frank E. McMaster of the coming due of the premiums on the policies issued to him by the defendant company, in accordance with the requirements of the statutes of the state of New York. (11) The renewal receipts for the second annual premium on the five policies held by Frank E. McMaster in the defendant company were sent for collection to Mary A. Ball, at Sioux City, Iowa, who on the 11th or 12th day of December, 1894, called on said McMaster for payment of the premiums in question. At that time McMaster declined making payment thereon; saying that he had seen other policies which promised better results, and that he did not think he would renew the insurance in the defendant company. Miss Ball told him the New York contracts had some nice provisions, like thirty days of grace and loans, and, in reply to an inquiry from McMaster, stated that his policies entitled him to the month's grace in the payment of the premiums, and that, as she understood it, the grace on the second premium would expire January 11th; and McMaster said, if he concluded to keep any of the insurance, he would call and pay for it before the grace expired. (12) That in November or December, 1894, Frank E. McMaster was examined for the purpose of obtaining life insurance by the agents of the Union Central Insurance Company; it being understood between the parties that the policies were not to issue until in January, 1895, and it being the purpose of McMaster to take one or two thousand dollars insurance in the Union Central Company at the expiration of his insurance in the defendant company, but also to continue part of the policies in the defendant company. (13) That on or about January 15, 1895, the agent of the Union...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Saucier v. Life & Casualty Ins. Co. of Tennessee
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • November 11, 1940
    ... ... clearly set out in the case of Home Insurance Company of New ... York v. Thornhill, 165 Miss. 787, 144 So. 861 ... The ... only way that this court can ... Mutual ... Life Ins. Co. of N.Y.v. Vaughan, 125 Miss. 369, 88 ... So. 11; McMaster v. N.Y.Life Ins. Co., 99 F. 856, 40 ... C. C. A. 119; 1 Cooley's Briefs on the Law of Ins., pp ... Company v. Hilton-Green, 241 U.S. 613, 36 S.Ct. 676, ... 680, 60 L.Ed. 1202, when construing a similar Florida ... statute, "to designate as agents certain persons who in ... ...
  • Central States Power & Light Corp. v. United States Zinc Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • August 1, 1932
    ...engagement of the parties is expressed therein. Green v. Chicago & N. W. Railway Company (C. C. A.) 92 F. 873; McMaster v. New York Life Insurance Co. (C. C. A.) 99 F. 856; Potomac Steam-Boat Co. v. Upper Potomac SteamBoat Co., 109 U. S. 672, 3 S. Ct. 445, 27 L. Ed. 1070. Section 5035, Comp......
  • Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Spaulding
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • June 22, 1915
    ...Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Kelly, 114 F. 268, 52 C. C. A. 154; Campbell v. Fidelity et al., 109 Ky. 661, 60 S.W. 492; McMaster v. N.Y. Life et al., 99 F. 856, 40 C. C. A. 119; Standard Life Ins. Co. v. Thornton, 100 F. 582, 40 C. C. A. 564, 49 L. R. A. 116; Sharland v. Washington Life Ins. Co.......
  • Harrington v. Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, a Corporation
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • April 21, 1911
    ... ... policy evidences the contents. New York L. Ins. Co. v ... McMaster, 30 C. C. A. 532, 57 U.S. App. 638, 87 F. 63; ... ...
  • 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