Hodsdon v. Guardian Life Insurance

97 Mass. 144
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedSeptember 15, 1867
StatusPublished
Cited by43 cases

This text of 97 Mass. 144 (Hodsdon v. Guardian Life Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hodsdon v. Guardian Life Insurance, 97 Mass. 144 (Mass. 1867).

Opinion

Gray, J.

Upon the payment of the cash premium and giving of the premium notes by the assured to the insurers, the policy became a binding contract; although by one of the conditions annexed, upon which it was declared to be made and accepted, it was to cease and determine in case of a failure to pay any premium note when due. The terms of the receipt given for the cash premium did not change the nature of the contract of insurance in this respect. The burden of proving a breach of this executory stipulation and an avoidance of the policy, by non-payment of one of the premium notes, was upon the defendants. Gray v. Gardner, 17 Mass. 188. Kingsley v. New England Insurance Co. 8 Cush. 393. Daniels v. Hudson [148]*148River Insurance Co. 12 Cush. 426. Orrell v. Hampden Insurance Co. 13 Gray, 431.

On the point whether the premium note in question had been paid, the evidence was conflicting, and was submitted to the jury with suitable instructions. Although an agent of the company had no authority to bind them by receiving payment of a premium note after it was due, the company might receive such payment at any time. If they received the amount of the note from their agent after it was due, they were bound to inform themselves of the time when it had been paid to him; and by receiving it from him without inquiry they waived the right to insist on the delay in the.payment as a ground of forfeiture of the policy. Exceptions overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Church of God in Christ, Inc. v. Congregation Kehillath Jacob
332 N.E.2d 918 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1975)
Paloeian v. Day
13 N.E.2d 398 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1938)
Gechijian v. Richmond Insurance
11 N.E.2d 478 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1937)
Southern States Life Ins. Co. v. Dunckley
148 So. 320 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1933)
Equitable Life Assurance Society v. Brewer
9 S.W.2d 206 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1928)
Morristown Furniture Co. v. People's Nat. Fire Ins.
149 Tenn. 214 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1923)
New York Life Ins. v. Dumler
282 F. 969 (Fifth Circuit, 1922)
Hanover Fire Ins. v. Dallavo
274 F. 258 (Sixth Circuit, 1921)
Carroll v. New York Life Insurance
180 N.W. 523 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1920)
West v. National Casualty Co.
112 N.E. 115 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1916)
Modern Brotherhood of America Lodge v. Bailey
150 P. 673 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1915)
Pender v. . Insurance Co.
79 S.E. 293 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1913)
Pender v. North State Life Insurance
163 N.C. 98 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1913)
Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. of Cal. v. O'Neil
1913 OK 110 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1913)
Security Mutual Life Insurance v. Riley
47 So. 735 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1908)
Kidder v. Supreme Commandery United Order of the Golden Cross
78 N.E. 469 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1906)
McNicholas v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
77 N.E. 756 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1906)
Thomas v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance
75 P. 665 (California Supreme Court, 1904)
Aetna Life Insurance v. Fallow
110 Tenn. 720 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1903)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
97 Mass. 144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hodsdon-v-guardian-life-insurance-mass-1867.