Mutual Benefit Life Insurance v. O'Brian

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Mutual Benefit Life Insurance v. O'Brian

138 S.W. 245, 144 Ky. 308, 1911 Ky. LEXIS 605

CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky

DecidedJune 16, 1911

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 138 S.W. 245 (Mutual Benefit Life Insurance v. O'Brian) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mutual Benefit Life Insurance v. O'Brian, 138 S.W. 245, 144 Ky. 308, 1911 Ky. LEXIS 605 (Ky. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Response to petition eoe eeheabing by

Chiee Justice Hobson.

The Act of April 5, 1893, provided that no life policy should become void for non-payment of premium ‘£ after two full annual premiums in cash or note or both have been paid thereon.” (Acts 1891-2-3, p. 660.) But the Act was by the same Legislature amended and the words quoted were made to read as follows: ££After two full annual premiums in cash have been paid thereon.” (Acts 1891-2-3, p. 1260.) This act was in force when the policy sued on was issued and controlled it. When the Legislature changed the existing law omitting the words “or note or both,” it could only have meant to require a payment in cash as the amendment expressly provides. The insured here had not paid two full annual premiums in cash; and the statute not applying, the case must be governed by the provisions of the contract. The policy does not, like the statute, require the payment of premiums in cash. The insured was entitled to extended insurance under the policy, but this expired before his death. (Mut. Ben. Life Ins. Co. v. O’Brian, 116 S, W., 750.

Petition overruled.

(See dissenting opinion by Judge Nunn, page 448.)

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

Response to petition eoe eeheabing by

Chiee Justice Hobson.

The Act of April 5, 1893, provided that no life policy should become void for non-payment of premium ‘£ after two full annual premiums in cash or note or both have been paid thereon.” (Acts 1891-2-3, p. 660.) But the Act was by the same Legislature amended and the words quoted were made to read as follows: ££After two full annual premiums in cash have been paid thereon.” (Acts 1891-2-3, p. 1260.) This act was in force when the policy sued on was issued and controlled it. When the Legislature changed the existing law omitting the words “or note or both,” it could only have meant to require a payment in cash as the amendment expressly provides. The insured here had not paid two full annual premiums in cash; and the statute not applying, the case must be governed by the provisions of the contract. The policy does not, like the statute, require the payment of premiums in cash. The insured was entitled to extended insurance under the policy, but this expired before his death. (Mut. Ben. Life Ins. Co. v. O’Brian, 116 S, W., 750.

Petition overruled.

(See dissenting opinion by Judge Nunn, page 448.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 S.W. 245, 144 Ky. 308, 1911 Ky. LEXIS 605, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mutual-benefit-life-insurance-v-obrian-kyctapp-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack