Simpson v. Prudential Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 25 November 1903 |
| Citation | 68 N.E. 673,184 Mass. 348 |
| Parties | SIMPSON v. PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. OF AMERICA. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
N. P Avery, for appellant.
Harlan P. Small, for appellee.
The plaintiff in this case is a minor, and brings this action, by her next friend, to recover the premiums paid by her on a life insurance policy issued to her by the defendant. The case was heard upon agreed facts, and judgment was ordered for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed. The policy was what is termed a 20-year endowment policy, for $500; and the agreed facts state that there was no fraud or undue influence practiced upon the plaintiff by the defendant or its agents and that the contract was a reasonable and prudent one for a person in the plaintiff's situation and condition in life. Before the action was brought, the plaintiff, through her attorney, had notified the defendant that she repudiated the policy and the contract contained in it, and demanded a return of the sums she had paid as premiums. The premiums paid amounted to $54, and it is agreed that the expense to the defendant of keeping the policy in force was $28.72. The defendant contends that this should be deducted from, or set off against, the premiums, if the plaintiff is allowed to recover for them.
It is manifest, we think, that, however reasonable and prudent it may be for an infant to take out a policy of life insurance, it does not come within the class of necessaries, or within the class of contracts which have been held, as matter of law, to be beneficial to, and therefore binding upon, an infant. It is only when the contract comes within the class of contracts which, as matter of law, are binding upon an infant, that the question of its reasonableness and purdence is material. Tupper v. Cadwell, 12 Metc. 559, 46 Am. Dec. 704.
The defendant contends tht this contract having been executed, in part, at least, the plaintiff cannot recover without making the defendant whole for the expense to which it has been subjected. But that would be compelling the plaintiff to carry out, to that extent, a contract which is not binding on her, and which she may avoid. Morse v. Ely, 154 Mass. 458, 28 N.E. 577, 26 Am. St. Rep. 263. It is well settled in this commonwealth, whatever may be the law elsewhere, that, in order to avoid a contract, an infant is not obliged to put the other party in statu quo. Gillis v. Goodwin, 180 Mass. 140, 61 N.E. 813, 91 Am. St. Rep 265, and cases cited; White...
To continue reading
Request your trial