Coffey vs. Universal Life Ins. Co. insurance money is to be paid, the person who procures the insurance and who continues to pay the premiums, has no authority by deed or will, to change the designation of or title to the money. He is under no obligation, in the absence of agreement, to continue to pay the premiums, but if he does so, the person originally designated in the policy will derive the benefit. Succession of Kugler, 23 Louisiana Annual, 455; Pence vs. Makepeace, 65 Indiana, 345; Gould vs. Emerson, 99 Massachusetts, 154; Ruppert vs. Union Mutual Ins. Co., 7 Robertson, 155; Chapin vs. Fellowes, 36 Connecticut, 132; Lemon vs. Phœnix Mut. L. Ins. Co., 38 Connecticut, 274. And an action may be brought by the beneficiary to quiet her title therein and to bar the claims of others. Godfrey vs. Wilson, 70 Indiana, 50.—[REPORTER. DANIEL J. COFFEY vs. UNIVERSAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY. CIRCUIT COURT-EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN-MAY, 1881. IN EQUITY. 1. LIFE INSURANCE-RIGHT TO PAID-UP POLICY-FORFEITURE SIXTY DAYS' DEFAULT.—The plaintiff was the holder of an endowment life insurance policy, issued by the defendant company, which provided that in case of default in payment of any premium, after two full years' payments had been made, the policy might be exchanged for a paid-up policy for a certain amount, subject to the condition that the policy duly receipted "shall have been transmitted to and received by the company within 60 days after such default." Held, that in case of default in payment of premium and no offer to surrender the original policy for a paid-up policy until a year and a half afterwards, the failure to transmit the policy within 60 days after default, would in the absence of excusing circumstances involve the loss of the right to a paid-up policy. Coffey vs. Universal Life Ins. Co. 2. ESTOPPEL OF COMPANY TO SET UP FORFEITURE. But where the company had refused by its agent to accept the premium on the day it was due, on account of proceedings against it for dissolution and appointment of a receiver, and had not notified the plaintiff to pay the premium elsewhere, and had refused to give him information and had informed him that his policy had wholly lapsed, and could not be revived until after the end of the court proceedings, if at all, the company are estopped from setting up the failure to transmit the policy within 60 days after default in payment of premium, as a forfeiture of the right to a paid-up policy. George H. Noyes, for complainant. Sleeper & Whiton, for defendant. DYER, J.-This is a bill to compel the defendant company, which is a corporation of the state of New York, to issue to the complainant a paid-up policy of life insurance of the amount of $600; and the controversy between the parties arises upon the following state of facts: On the twenty-third day of May, 1868, the complainant procured from the defendant company a policy of insurance on his own life, for the sum of $1,000, payable to Honora Coffey on the twenty-third day of May, 1883, or in case of complainant's death before that day, then within 30 days after notice and proof of death. The policy required the premiums to be paid in four installments, of $14.26 each, on the twenty-third day of May, August, November, and February, in each year, and contained a condition that in case of default in the payment of either of the premiums the policy should become void, and all payments thereon should be forfeited, except as further provided. By the terms of the policy it was further stipulated, that, in case of default in any payment after two full years' payment had been made thereon, the policy might be exchanged for a paid-up endowment policy for an amount stated in a table given in the original policy, subject to the condition that the policy, duly receipted, Coffey vs. Universal Life Ins. Co. "shall have been transmitted to and received by the company within 60 days after such default, and that no condition of the policy shall have been violated." By the table annexed it was made to appear that the complainant, after nine years' payment of premiums, would be entitled, under the conditions before stated, to a paid-up term policy for $600. All premiums were paid to the twenty-third day of May, 1877, inclusive, covering a period of nine years from the date of the policy. Payments were made to local agents of the company in Wisconsin. On the twenty-third day of August, 1877, the complainant went to the company's agent in Milwaukee, as usual, and desired to pay the premium due on that day, but was told by the agent that the business of the company was in the hands of a receiver, or would be, and that he had no authority to receive the money. The complainant testifies that he offered to pay the premium due on that day, but was advised by the agent not to make any more payments until the business of the company was settled. It appears that on the twelfth day of July, 1877, the attorney general of the state of New York filed an information against the company, in the Supreme Court of that state, alleging its insolvency, and praying for an order to show cause why its business should not be closed, and for a decree dissolving the company and appointing a receiver. On the eighteenth day of July, 1877, an order was entered by the court in those proceedings permitting any policy-holder, until further order, to pay the United States Trust Company any premiums thereafter becoming due on policies issued by the insurance company, with the same effect as if paid to said company. Afterward, and on the twenty-third day of August, 1877, which was the day when the premium on complainant's policy was due, the court made an order restraining the company from exercising any of its corporate rights, privileges, and franchises, except receiving and paying moneys as there Coffey vs. Universal Life Ins. Co. after allowed, and from paying out, or in any way transferring or delivering, to any person, any of the effects, moneys, or property of the company, except salaries of employees and officers then due, and from collecting or receiving any debts or demands except interest, agents' balances, and premiums, until the court should otherwise order. This order remained in force until October 29, 1878, with certain modifications,such of which as are material here will be presently referred to. On the 1st day of September a further motion was made for the appointment of a receiver. Orders were duly entered postponing the hearing of this motion from September 4th to September 8th, and from the latter date to September 14, 1877, on condition that none of the policies of the company should be decreed to have lapsed or become forfeited by reason of the non-payment of premiums due after September 3d and before the decision of the motion for a receiver; to which condition the company consented. Again, on the fourteenth of September, the hearing of all motions in said proceedings was adjourned until November 17, 1877. On the thirteenth day of October of that year an order was entered permitting the company to accept payment of debts due to it, including payments on mortgages, and restraining all persons and corporations from commencing any action or proceedings against it. On the eighth day of December, 1877, an order was made postponing the hearing of the motion for a receiver until such time as it might be brought on by the attorney general, on five days' notice. This order also provided that the time of payment of all premiums due and to become due on outstanding policies be extended 30 days after the entry of the final order on the motion for a receiver; and all injunctions theretofore granted were continued in force until the final order of the court, except in particulars further specified, but not material here. Various proceedings were thereafter had, until, on the twenty-ninth day of Coffey vs. Universal Life Ins. Co. October, 1878, an order was made vacating the order of August 23, 1877, so far as it restrained the company and its officers from exercising any of the corporate rights, privileges, and franchises of the company, and the company, and its trustees and officers, were authorized to resume their powers in the business of the corporation and their control over its assets. This order required that a copy of the same be sent to every policy-holder, with a notice declaring the company solvent, and requiring such policy-holder to pay his premiums, past due and unpaid, within 90 days from the day of mailing a copy of the order and notice, and provided that the company should not forfeit any insurance, by reason of the non-payment of past due premiums, until after the expiration of said 90 days; the court reserving the power to relieve from any forfeiture by reason of the non-receipt of a copy of the order and notice, on good cause shown. It appears that about the twenty-first day of July, 1877, the company deposited in the mail at New York a postal card, upon which was printed so much of the order of the court in New York, of date July 18, 1877, as permitted policy-holders to pay premiums thereafter becoming due on their policies to the United States Trust Company, which was undoubtedly intended to be sent to the complainant, but was in fact addressed to Honora Coffey, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Prior to August 23, 1877, a postal card was also mailed, giving notice of the amount of the premium falling due on the complainant's policy on August 23d, and of the time when due, and that it could be paid at the office of the company, or to an agent, when such agent produced a receipt signed by an officer of the company; but this was also addressed to Honora Coffey. Neither of these postal cards was received by the complainant, but he was informed by letter from the secretary of the company, of date March 9, 1878, of the order of July, 18, 1877. Correspondence between the attorneys for com |