Travelers Ins Co of Hartford, Conn v. Edwards
Decision Date | 27 May 1887 |
Parties | TRAVELERS' INS. CO. OF HARTFORD, CONN., v. EDWARDS. 1 |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This is a writ of error to the circuit court of the United States for the Northern district of New York. The defendant in error, Catherine L. Edwards, obtained a judgment in the circuit court for the sum of $5,387.50 against the Travelers' Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut, on a policy of insurance upon the life of her brother, Frank Edwards. The suit was originally instituted in the supreme court for Ontario county, New York, from whence it was removed by the plaintiff in error into the circuit court of the United States for that district. The record of a long trial before a jury is presented to us in a stenographic report of the proceedings there, which has been adopted by the parties and by the judge trying the case as a bill of exceptions. It is obvious from this paper that the main controversy before the jury was upon a question of suicide set up by the defendant company, but the brief of the plaintiff in error, and his assignment of errors, eliminates all this, and relies upon the defense stated by the brief in the following language: 'Trial was had before a jury, and a verdict was rendered for the plaintiff, and the questions now arising are whether the plaintiff below complied with those conditions of the policy which required written notice to the company of the death of the deceased, and proofs of the same within seven months thereafter; whether the action was prematurely brought by reason of the plaintiff's failure to comply with such conditions of the policy before bringing suit; and whether certain details of evidence bearing upon the foregoing questions were properly admitted against the objection of the company.'
The assignments of error correspond with this statement, and are given verbatim, as follows:
The language of the policy upon this point is as follows: 'That, in the event of the death of the person insured, then the party assured, or his or her legal representatives, shall give immediate notice in writing to the company at Hartford, Conn., stating the time, place, and cause of death, and shall within seven months thereafter, by direct and reliable evidence, furnish the company with proofs of the same, giving full particulars, without fraud or concealment of any kind.'
The answer of the defendant alleges that the plaintiff did not give to the defendant, at Hartford or elsewhere, immediate notice in writing of the death of the said insured; and that defendant did not receive from said plaintiff notice of the death of the said Frank Edwards until the tenth day of February, 1883, his death occurring on June 19, 1882; and that the plaintiff did not, within seven months after the last-mentioned date, give notice in writing to the defendant, at Hartford or elsewhere, nor in the manner and form as required by the policy, and has not delivered to or furnished the defendant with proofs of the death of said Frank Edwards with full particulars, but, on the contrary, failed and neglected so to do.
The evidence on this subject shows substantially that Phillips was the agent at Southbridge, Massachusetts, of the defendant corporation; that the application on which the policy issued was forwarded by Phillips to Hartford, the policy returned to him, and by him delivered to Edwards; that the receipt for the premium, signed by Rodney Dennis, secretary of the company, declared in the body of it that the policy would 'not be valid until the above-stated premium has been received during the life-time of said Frank Edwards, and this receipt countersigned by E. M. Phillips, agent of this company at Southbridge, Mass.' On the margin of the receipt was the statement that 'the agent who receives the within premium should countersign this receipt, and invariably state over his signature the date at which the payment is made to him.' Across its face was written: It was further indorsed:
The evidence further shows that, on the day after the death of Edwards, a gentleman named Bartholomew, who was a friend, and probably the attorney, of the family, met Mr. Phillips in the street; that Phillips said to him in regard to Edwards, whose death was then just known, that he was insured in the Travelers' Life Insurance Company, and that he (Phillips) was going to Hartford. The witness Bartholo- mew testifies: The other evidence in the case, including...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Douville v. Pacific Coast Casualty Company
... ... insured to recover. (Riddlesbarger v. Hartford Ins. Co., ... 7 Wall. (U. S.) 386, 19 L.Ed. 257; Underwood Veneer ... United Benev. Soc. v. Freeman, 111 Ga. 355, 36 S.E ... 764; Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Myers, 62 Ohio St ... 529, 57 N.E. 458, 49 L. R. A. 760; ... (Travelers' Ins ... Co. of Hartford, Conn., v. Edwards, 122 U.S. 457, 7 ... S.Ct. 1249, 30 L.Ed. 1178.) ... ...
-
American Freehold Land Mortgage Co. of London, Limited v. Wood
... ... 7, 28 L.Ed. 49, 3 S.Ct. 428; Travellers' Ins ... Co. v. Edwards, 122 U.S. 457, 30 L.Ed. 1178, 7 ... S.Ct. 1249; Johnson v. Milwaukee & ... ...
-
King v. New York Life Ins. Co.
...The question at issue in the case of Edwards v. Travelers' Life Ins. Co. (C. C.) 20 F. 661, affirmed in Travellers' Ins. Co. v. Edwards, 122 U. S. 457, 7 S. Ct. 1249, 30 L. Ed. 1178 (and in several other cases cited by appellant), was whether the insured committed suicide. The policy provid......
-
Hurt v. Employers' Liability Assur. Corp., Limited, of London, England
... ... of the First National Bank v. Hartford Ins. Co., 95 ... U.S. 675, 24 L.Ed. 563, and American Surety Co. v ... in its opinion in Sudduth v. Travelers' Ins. Co ... (C.C.) 106 F. 823, 824, namely: ... 'One ... or ... 383, 54 Am.St.Rep. 196; Travelers' Ins. Co. v ... Edwards, 122 U.S. 457, 7 Sup.Ct. 1249, 30 L.Ed. 1178 ... As ... ...