New York Life Ins. Co. v. People

Decision Date21 February 1902
Citation63 N.E. 264,195 Ill. 430
PartiesNEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. v. PEOPLE.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from appellate court, Fourth district.

Action by the people against the New York Life Insurance Company and another. From a judgment for the people, affirmed by the appellate court (95 Ill. App. 136), the company appeals. Affirmed.

W. W. Clemens and Edward O'Bryan, for appellant.

R. R. Fowler, State's Atty., and W. W. Duncan, for the People.

CARTER, J.

This was an action of debt, brought in the Williamson circuit court, to recover a statutory penalty against the appellant and one Will H. Piety, its agent. A jury was waived, and there was a trial before the court, and a recovery had on two counts of the declaration, of the penalty of $500 on each count, against each defendant. On appeal by the insurance company the appellate court affirmed the judgment, and the company took this its further appeal to this court.

The statute (Hurd's Rev. St. 1899, p. 978) is as follows:

Section 1. That no life insurance company or association organized under the laws of this state, or doing business within the limits of the same, shall make or permit any distinction or discrimination between insurants of the same class and equal expectation of life, in its established rates; nor in the charging, collecting, demanding or receiving of the amount of premium for insurants of the same class and equal expectation of life; nor in the return ratably of premium, dividends, or other benefits accruing, or that may accrue, to such insurants as aforesaid; nor in the terms and conditions of the contract between such company and the insurants; and such contract of insurance shall be fully and wholly expressed and contained in the policy issued and the application therefor; nor shall any such company or its agents pay, or allow, or offer to pay or allow to any person insured any special rebate or premium, or any special favor or advantage in the dividends or other benefits to accrue on such policy, or promise the same to any person as inducement to insure, or promise to give any advantage or valuable consideration whatever, not expressed or specified in the policy of such company.

Sec. 2. If any such life insurance company, or association, its agent or agents, as aforesaid, shall make any unjust discriminations, as enumerated in section 1 of this act, the same shall be deemed guilty of having violated the provisions of this act, and upon conviction thereof shall be dealt with as hereinafter provided.

Sec. 3. Any such life insurance company or association which shall transact its business in this state in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • City of Chicago v. Lord
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 12 novembre 1954
    ...and, if he answers without claiming it, the privilege is waived. Bolen v. People, 184 Ill. 338, 56 N.E. 408; New York Life Ins. Co. v. People, 195 Ill. 430, 63 N.E. 264.' Plaintiff's contention that 'the guaranty against compulsory self-incrimination may be invoked only 'in any criminal cas......
  • People v. Nachowicz
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 14 octobre 1930
    ...and, if he answers without claiming it, the privilege is waived. Bolen v. People, 184 Ill. 338, 56 N. E. 408;New York Life Ins. Co. v. People, 195 Ill. 430, 63 N. E. 264. ‘The law presumes that a party who is called upon to testify as a mere witness knows his rights. He may decline to testi......
  • Cummings v. People
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 24 octobre 1904
    ...v. City of Ottawa, 165 Ill. 207, 46 N. E. 213;Farwell & Co. v. Shove, 105 Ill. 61;Chiniquy v. People, 78 Ill. 570;New York Life Ins. Co. v. People, 195 Ill. 430, 63 N. E. 264;Board of Supervisors v. Commissioners of Highways, 164 Ill. 574, 45 N. E. 983. No attempt was made to question its v......
  • William Alister v. William Henkel
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 12 mars 1906
    ...Am. Dec. 813; State v. Wentworth, 65 Me. 234, 241, 20 Am. Rep. 688; Ex parte Reynolds, 15 Cox, C. C. 108, 115. In New York L. Ins. Co. v. People, 195 Ill. 430, 63 N. E. 264, the privilege was claimed by a corporation, but the agent of an insurance company was permitted to testify in a suit ......
  • 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