Mutual Life Insurance v. Sears

Supreme Court

Mutual Life Insurance v. Sears

178 U.S. 345, 20 S. Ct. 912, 44 L. Ed. 1096, 1900 U.S. LEXIS 1682

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMay 28, 1900

Docket452

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 178 U.S. 345 (Mutual Life Insurance v. Sears) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mutual Life Insurance v. Sears, 178 U.S. 345, 20 S. Ct. 912, 44 L. Ed. 1096, 1900 U.S. LEXIS 1682 (1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Brewer,

after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

In view of what has been already decided in the case of Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Phinney, Executrix, ante, 327, it is needless to do more than note the fact that, as shown by the answer, after the insured had once defaulted in May, 1892, and a second default had occurred in May, 1893, application was made to him by the company, through its agents, to restore the policy, and that he declined to make any further payments or to continue the policy, and elected to have it terminated, which election was accepted by the company, and the parties *347 to the contract treated it thereafter as abandoned. As we held in the prior case, there is nothing in the New York statute (if controlling at all) to prevent the parties from dealing with that as any other contract, and if they chose to abandon it, that action is conclusive.

The judgments of the Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit and of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Washington are reversed and the case remanded to the latter court, with instructions to overrule the demurrer to defendants answer.

Mr. Justice Peckham did not sit in the hearing and took no part in the decision of this case.

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

Mr. Justice Brewer,

after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

In view of what has been already decided in the case of Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Phinney, Executrix, ante, 327, it is needless to do more than note the fact that, as shown by the answer, after the insured had once defaulted in May, 1892, and a second default had occurred in May, 1893, application was made to him by the company, through its agents, to restore the policy, and that he declined to make any further payments or to continue the policy, and elected to have it terminated, which election was accepted by the company, and the parties *347 to the contract treated it thereafter as abandoned. As we held in the prior case, there is nothing in the New York statute (if controlling at all) to prevent the parties from dealing with that as any other contract, and if they chose to abandon it, that action is conclusive.

The judgments of the Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit and of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Washington are reversed and the case remanded to the latter court, with instructions to overrule the demurrer to defendants answer.

Mr. Justice Peckham did not sit in the hearing and took no part in the decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 U.S. 345, 20 S. Ct. 912, 44 L. Ed. 1096, 1900 U.S. LEXIS 1682, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mutual-life-insurance-v-sears-scotus-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack