New Era Life Ass'n v. Musser
Decision Date | 14 May 1888 |
Docket Number | 435 |
Citation | 120 Pa. 384,14 A. 155 |
Parties | THE NEW ERA LIFE ASS'N v. E. N. MUSSER |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued April 25, 1888 [Copyrighted Material Omitted]
ERROR TO THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY.
No. 435 January Term 1888, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 448 August Term 1885, C.P.
An appeal was taken by the defendant from the judgment of a justice of the peace in favor of The New Era Life Association of 1876 against E.N. Musser, for $21.63, the amount of several assessments upon a policy of insurance for $1,000 issued to the defendant, during the life of the policy.
At the trial on December 2, 1887, the title of the cause was amended by adding to the party plaintiff, "For the use of J. M Weistling, receiver." It appeared that plaintiff company had been incorporated under § 28 of the Corporation Act of April 29, 1874, P.L. 84, and conducted its business of life insurance on the assessment plan.
The signature of the defendant being admitted, the plaintiff offered in evidence the defendant's application for a policy of insurance in this company dated May 25, 1881.
Mr. Beltzhoover: We object, that the application is dated May 25, 1881; that the act of the legislature of May 11, 1881, requires that a copy of this application and of all applications for insurance be attached to the policies issued, and in the event that they were not so attached, they cannot be offered in evidence in any proceeding or contention, in which they are involved, in court; that no copy of this application was attached to the policy issued to the defendant, while it is referred to and made a part of the contract stated in the policy of insurance, and therefore the evidence is not competent and cannot be admitted.
By the court: The policy is not now offered in evidence and is not subject to the inspection of the court. The objection at this point is premature, and for that reason we overrule it and seal a bill for the defendant.
The policy issued to the defendant and admitted to have been received by him, being lost, a policy issued to Rebecca R. Musser was admitted to contain the same provisions. This policy provided:
The court, BARNETT, P.J. 41st judicial district, holding special term, charged the jury and answered the points presented as follows:
The plaintiff has presented three points on which we are asked to give you instructions. The first point is:
1. The court is requested to charge the jury that the act of May 11, 1881, does not apply to the contract which is the basis of the claim in suit.
Answer: We decline to affirm this point as presented.
2. That the said act is unconstitutional in that it violates the obligation of the charter contract of the corporation plaintiff.
Answer: We decline to affirm this point.
3. The said act is unconstitutional in that it is an attempt to prevent persons who are sui juris from making their own contracts.
Answer: We decline to affirm this point.
The defendant has asked us to say to you:
1. If the jury believe from the evidence in the case that the policy issued to Dr. Musser, on May 26, 1881, had no copy of the application attached to or included therein, then under the act of the assembly of May 11, 1881, "such application shall not be received in evidence in any controversy between the parties to or interested in the said policies, nor shall such application be considered a part of the policy or contract between the parties;" there being a plain reference to said application in said policy and forming a part thereof.
Answer: This we affirm.
We say to you, therefore, gentlemen, that if you are satisfied from the evidence in this case that there was in the policy issued by the plaintiff to the defendant, a reference to the application made by the defendant, then it appearing that that application was not attached to the policy, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover. The only evidence in this case referring to that, is the policy which is not denied to have been similar in its terms to the one issued to the defendant. In that policy there is a reference to the application upon which it was issued, and if the jury believe that the defendant's policy was similar in its language and terms to the one which has been read in your hearing, then we say to you that the application upon which the plaintiff bases his suit could not be properly considered in evidence, and inasmuch as under the act of assembly it forms no part of the contract between the parties, the plaintiff could not recover.
The verdict of the jury was in favor of the defendant, and judgment being entered, the plaintiff took this writ assigning as error:
1. The refusal of the plaintiff's, and the affirmance of the defendant's first point.
2. The refusal of the plaintiff's second point.
3. The refusal of the plaintiff's third point.
Judgment affirmed.
Mr. Robert Snodgrass (with him Mr. J. W. Wetzel), for the plaintiff in error:
1. The plaintiff company was incorporated under § 28, act of April 29, 1874, P.L. 84. By § 25 of the same act, "no modification or repeal of this act shall affect any franchise obtained under the provisions of the same." Under said sections the corporation in question became possessed of extensive franchises. As to contracts it was authorized to make, its powers were practically unlimited, and none of these powers which had become vested rights could be modified without trenching upon its charter contract as protected by said act as well as by the constitution of the United States. "The legal remedies for the enforcement of a contract which belong to it at the time and place where it is made, are a part of its obligation. A state may change them, provided the change involve no impairment of a substantial right. If . . . the legislative acts of a state fall within the category last mentioned they are to that extent utterly void. They are, for all the purposes of the contract which they impair, as if they had never existed:" Gunn v. Barry, 15 Wall. 623.
2. At the time of its incorporation in 1876, the plaintiff company had the undoubted right under its charter to make its contracts of insurance in any form and subject to any conditions it pleased. There were no restrictions, either as to the subject matter and form of its contracts or the legal remedies to enforce them. Now, the act of 1881 not only attempts to establish a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rauen v. The Prudential Ins. Co. of America
...L.R.A. 57, 47 Am. St. Rep. 456); Bair v. Railroad, 3 H. L. Cases, 1; Downer v. Chesebrough, 36 Conn. 39 (4 Am. Rep. 29); Association v. Musser, 120 Pa. 384 (14 A. 155); Norristown Title, Trust & Safe Deposit Co. v. Co., 132 Pa. 385 (19 A. 270); Hunziker v. Lodge, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 1510 (78 S.W......
-
French v. Columbia Life & Trust Co.
... ... 381, 59 S.W. 15, Considine v. M. L. Ins. Co., 165 ... Mass. 462, 43 N.E. 201, and New Era Life Ass'n v ... Musser, 120 Pa. 384, 14 A. 155. They are all ... illustrative of statutory regulations similar to that of Iowa ... quoted above. Bowyer v ... ...
-
Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Cobbs
... ... requires contracts for the sale of land to be in writing ... New Era Life Association v. Musser, 120 Pa. 384, 14 ... A. 155. We hold, and we do not think that the holding is in ... conflict with any of the authorities cited, that, reference ... ...
-
Fidelity Title & Trust Co. v. Illinois Life Ins. Co.
... ... have substituted his estate or any other person: Brigham ... v. Home Life Ins. Co., 131 Mass. 319; New Era Life ... Ass'n. v. Musser, 120 Pa. 384; Lenox v. Ins ... Co., 165 Pa. 575; Morris v. Life Assur. Co., 183 Pa ... Concealment, ... which is only the effect of ... Travelers Ins. Co., 11 North Dakota, 274 (91 N.W. 75); ... S.C. 34 Ins. Law Jour. 124; Austin v. Mut. Reserve Fund ... Life Assn., 132 F. 555; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co ... v. Howle, 62 Ohio 204 (56 N.E. Repr. 908); Cable v ... U.S. Life Ins. Co., 111 F. 19; Harnickell v ... ...