Porter v. U.S. Life Ins. Co.

Citation160 Mass. 183,35 N.E. 678
PartiesPORTER v. UNITED STATES LIFE INS. CO.
Decision Date29 November 1893
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
COUNSEL

James

B. Carroll, for plaintiff.

T.M Brown, for defendant.

OPINION

FIELD C.J.

The policy provides in the first condition that, "in case any premium or payment required or agreed to be made now or hereafter, in connection with this insurance, shall not be so paid when due, then this contract shall become null and void and of no effect, except as provided in the special conditions on the back of this policy." The fifth condition of the policy is as follows: "The contract of insurance is contained only in this policy and the application, (which is hereby made part hereof,) taken together, and none of its terms or conditions shall be modified or waived except in writing, signed by the president, together with the secretary or actuary." The eighth condition of the policy is as follows: "This policy is issued under the limited tontine dividend plan of this company, on the special conditions stated on the back of this policy, which are hereby accepted by the assured as part of this contract, as fully as if they were recited at length over the signatures affixed hereto." On the back of the policy is the following condition: "Fifth. After there shall have been paid under this contract three full years' premiums, if default shall be made in any payment within specified, the entire reserve on this policy, as calculated at that date according to the actuaries' table of mortality, with interest at the rate of four per cent. per annum, and the net annual premiums method, after deducting the amount of any note, draft, indebtedness, or charge, with the interest thereon accrued against this policy, shall, on written demand made at the company's principal office in New York city, upon the blank forms furnished by the company on application therefor, within six months after such default, and during the life of the insured, be taken as a single premium to continue the insurance named in this policy in force at its full amount for such time beyond such default as such single premium will purchase that amount as (nonparticipating) paid-up-insurance at the company's present published rates, taken at the age (nearest birthday) of the insured at the date of said default, subject to all the conditions and agreements of this contract; provided however, that if the death of the insured occurs within three years after such default, and during such continued time of insurance, there shall be deducted from the principal sum payable the amount of all payments that would have become due up to the time of said death had no default occurred." The policy was dated May 28, 1887, and the premiums were duly paid thereon semiannually up to and including the premium due May 28, 1890. Thereafter no premiums were paid. Ernest H Porter, the insured, died July 1, 1891. Neither he nor any one in his behalf made a written demand upon the company for an extension of the policy pursuant to the fifth condition on the back. The principal contentions on the part of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Nickell v. Phoenix Insurance Company of Brooklyn
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 8, 1898
    ... ... power to waive the furnishing of proofs of loss. Wood on Ins ... [1 Ed.], p. 730; Wood on Ins. [2 Ed.], secs. 429 and 447; ... Ins. Co., 136 N.Y. 547; Carey v ... Ins. Co., 54 N.W. 18; Porter v. Ins. Co., 160 ... Mass. 183; Moore v. Ins. Co., 141 N.Y. 219; ... collecting the premiums and signed the policies. During the ... life of the policy, on September 13, 1894, the property was ... totally ... ...
  • Blair v. Nat'l Reserve Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • January 2, 1936
    ...to include the abrogation of the condition in a manner excluded by the very terms of the contract itself. Porter v. United States Life Ins. Co., 160 Mass. 183, 186, 35 N.E. 678;Shapiro v. Security Inc. Co., 256 Mass. 358, 365, 152 N.E. 370;Friedman v. Orient Ins. Co., 278 Mass. 596, 599, 18......
  • Bogosian v. New York Life Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • January 31, 1944
    ... ... defendant had the power to bind it in a way contrary to that ... contemplated by the policy. Porter v. United States Life ... Ins. Co. 160 Mass. 183 ... Hayes v. Metropolitan Life ... Ins. Co. 236 Mass. 476 ... Friedman v. Orient Ins ... Co. 278 ... ...
  • Sun Mut. Ins. Co. v. Searles
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • November 18, 1895
    ... ... N.E. 31; Wash v. Insurance Co., 73 N.Y. 10; ... Marvin v. Insurance Co., 85 N.Y. 278; Porter v ... Insurance Co., 35 N.E. 678 ... Miller, ... Smith & Hirsh, for appellees ... ...
  • 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