Miller v. Life Insurance Company

Decision Date01 December 1870
Citation79 U.S. 285,12 Wall. 285,20 L.Ed. 398
PartiesMILLER v. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

GENTLEMEN: In reply to yours of the 23d, I regret that Mr. Scott did not do as he promised you. I did not solicit or ask him to pay the note. He told you that he would pay you the note. Had he not told you I should have provided for the amount long since. I have about sixty dollars on hand. Will get the $86.26 and send to Baltimore and purchase a draft on New York, and have it sent in a day or two.

Hoping that all things will be all right in a few days, I am,

Yours truly,

W. MILLER.

[Same to Same.]

REESE'S CORNER, MARYLAND, August 18th, 1868.

MESSRS. DUTCHER & FASSET,

St. Louis.

DEAR GENTS: I shall ship some wheat to-morrow to Messrs. Cox & Brown, Baltimore, and will direct them to send you a draft on New York for $86.26. I regret the delay, and hope it may never occur again. Shall be in St. Louis this fall. Will make arrangements to have all my notes paid at maturity.

Yours truly,

W. MILLER.

The draft, however, not coming, Dutcher & Fasset wrote again thus:

ST. LOUIS, September 10th, 1868.

W. MILLER, ESQ.,

Reese's Corner, Maryland.

DEAR SIR: Your several letters have been received; the last, under date of August 18th, in which you remark, 'I shall ship wheat to-morrow to Messrs. Cox & Brown, Baltimore, and will instruct them to send you a draft on New York for $86.26.'

The draft has never been sent, or it has never come to hand. Now, sir, we are fearful you will lose your policy if payment is not made soon. Give it your attention at once, if you please; and as it has been running so long, you will have to add the interest, which will be $1.34, making the amount to be remitted $87.60.

Truly yours,

DUTCHER & FASSET, Agents.

And hearing that he was 'quite sick,' wrote thus:

ST. LOUIS, October 14th, 1868.

WALTER MILLER, ESQ.,

Reese's Corner, Maryland.

DEAR SIR: We learn from Mr. Scott that you are quite sick. As you have not paid your cash payment on your life policy in the Brooklyn, you must be aware that the policy is forfeited, and we now inclose you two notes for part payment of the premium. It has now been standing for four months beyond the time of payment.

You will please return the policy to us. The writer regrets very much to hear of your illness, and hope you may speedily recover.

Truly yours,

DUTCHER & FASSET, General Agents.

Miller died before this last letter reached him, and the company refusing to pay, solely upon the ground that the policy had never been in force by reason of the non-payment of the premium, the widow brought this suit, as already said, in the court below, on the policy. By consent of parties the case was tried by the court without the intervention of a jury; this sort of trial being in virtue of the 4th section of an act of Congress of March 3d, 1865, which after enacting that issues of fact in civil cases may be determined by the court without a jury, whenever the parties file a stipulation in writing, &c., proceeds thus:

'The finding of the court upon the facts, which finding may be either general or special, shall have the same effect as the verdict of the jury. The rulings of the court in the progress of the trial, when excepted to at the time, may be reviewed by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
90 cases
  • Anglo-American Land, Mortgage & Agency Co. v. Lombard
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • July 16, 1904
    ... ... creditors of the Lombard Investment Company, a Kansas ... corporation (called herein the 'Kansas Company'), ... the usual and ordinary business which constitutes the active ... life of the corporation is suspended, and the business ... transacted is only ... to announce a contrary rule ( Partridge v. Insurance ... Co., 15 Wall. 573, 579. 21 L.Ed. 229; Dushane v ... Benedict, ... 561; ... Norris v. Jackson, 9 Wall. 125, 19 L.Ed. 608; ... Miller v. Life Insurance Co., 12 Wall. 284, 301, 20 ... L.Ed. 398; Crews v ... ...
  • Fleischmann Const Co v. United States Forsberg, 50
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • March 1, 1926
    ...preserved by bill of exceptions, as required by the statute. Norris v. Jackson, 9 Wall. 125, 128, 19 L. Ed. 608; Miller v. Insurance Co., 12 Wall. 285, 300, 20 L. Ed. 398; Dickinson v. Planters' Bank, supra, 257; Insurance Co. v. Folson, 18 Wall. 237, 248, 21 L. Ed. 827; Cooper v. Omohundro......
  • Aetna Indem. Co. v. J.R. Crowe Coal & Mining Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • April 27, 1907
    ... ... 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 ... 278, 282, 3 ... Sup.Ct. 207, 27 L.Ed. 932; Moulor v. American Life Ins ... Co., 111 U.S. 335, 341, 4 Sup.Ct. 466, 28 L.Ed. 447; ... 86; Justices v. Murray, 9 Wall. 274, 277, 19 L.Ed ... 658; Miller v. Life Ins. Co., 12 Wall. 285, 300, 20 ... L.Ed. 398; Insurance Co. v ... ...
  • United States v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • January 21, 1929
    ...by bill of exceptions, as required by the statute. Norris v. Jackson, 9 Wall. 125, 128 19 L. Ed. 608; Miller v. Brooklyn L. Insurance Co., 12 Wall. 285, 300 20 L. Ed. 398; Dickinson v. Planters' Bank, supra, 257; Mercantile Mut. Insurance Co. v. Folsom, 18 Wall. 237, 248 21 L. Ed. 827; Coop......
  • 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