Seamans v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 04 August 1880
• Citation: 3 F. 325
• Parties: SEAMANS v. THE NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

3 F. 325

SEAMANS v. THE NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO.

United States Circuit Court, D. Minnesota.

August 4, 1880

Charles J. Bartleson, for plaintiff.

Geo. L & Charles E. Otis, for defendant.

McCRARY C.J.

This is an action upon a policy of insurance upon the life of one Albert P. Seamans, dated April 24, 1874, for $1,000.

At the December term, 1879, there was a trial by jury and a special verdict, upon which judgment was rendered for the plaintiff for the sum of $6.09 only, that being a dividend due the insured at the time of his death. The court held that the plaintiff could not recover on the policy because the same had been forfeited by the non-payment of the premium which matured April 24, 1877. The policy provides that if the premiums shall not be paid when due the policy 'shall cease and determine.'

A motion for a new trial was made by the plaintiff upon the ground that the judgment was not warranted by the evidence and was contrary to law, and also on the ground of newly-discovered evidence. The court, while doubting the sufficiency of the newly-discovered evidence to change the result, sustained the motion and granted a new trial, with a view especially to a further consideration of certain questions of law arising in the case. The case is now submitted to the court (the parties having waived a jury) upon the special verdict and the newly-discovered evidence subsequently taken. It is conceded that the premium which became due on the fourteenth of April, 1877, was not, in fact, paid, and that unless plaintiff has shown a waiver of payment, or that the non-payment resulted from the fault of defendant, the policy sued on is forfeited. The facts relied upon by plaintiff to excuse the non-payment of this premium as they appear from the special verdict and the testimony since taken, are as follows:

First. The premium due April 14, 1876, was paid without objection after maturity, as hereinafter stated. With this exception, all the premiums were paid as they matured prior to April, 1877.

The defendant's agents always notified assured in advance of the time when the premium would become due, and in said notice stated the amount of cash dividend which came due to the assured at the maturity of the premium.

Second. The assured, having moved to Minneapolis, was informed in 1876, before the premium was due, that he could pay the same at the Hennepin County Savings Bank, which he did on the fourteenth day of April, 1876, nearly one month after the same was due, which payment was received by the agent of defendant without objection.

Third. The Hennepin County Savings Bank, early in March, 1877, ceased to be the defendant's agent to collect said premiums, and no notice was given the assured of that fact, or that any other agent had been appointed.

Fourth. In March, 1877, the defendant notified the assured that the premium on the policy would fall due April 24, 1877, and that a cash dividend of $6.09 would be due him at that time, which he could apply on the premium, and after deducting this amount pay the balance; but no notice was given the assured of any agent to whom the premium could be paid in Minneapolis, and from whom a renewal receipt could be obtained. The notice did, however, require payment to be made 'at the office of the agent of the company in Minneapolis, Minnesota.'

Fifth. That the First National Bank of Minneapolis immediately succeeded to the agency of the Hennepin County Savings Bank for the collection of premiums for the defendant company, and was authorized to collect the premium due April 24, 1877, and was the only agent at that place. The plaintiff had no actual notice of the agency of said bank. The defendant had a state agent at St. Paul.

Sixth. That plaintiff and insured were informed by William B. Mason, agent of defendant at Minneapolis, shortly before the premium of 1876 became due, that it was not material that the same should be paid when due, but that it might be paid at any time within several months thereafter without prejudice to their rights.

Seventh. Silas A. Seamans, father of the assured, testifies that, at the request of the assured, he went to Minneapolis to pay the premium due April 24, 1877. He cannot fix the exact date, but says that it was not after the maturity of the premium. He went to the Hennepin County Savings Bank, where payment had been made the year before, and offered to pay the amount, but was informed that that was not the place to pay it, and that he would probably have to go to St. Paul. Although he made inquiry of several persons besides the bank officers, with whom he conversed, he failed to find the agency in Minneapolis, and was not informed that the First National Bank of Minneapolis was the agent.

Eighth. The assured was killed June 23, 1877, by a boiler explosion on Lake Minnetonka, Minnesota, and the premium due April 24, 1877, was not paid or tendered either before or after his death.

Upon these facts should the court declare and enforce a forfeiture of the policy on account of the non-payment of the dividend due April 24, 1877?

In ...