Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Sears, 178 U.S. 345 (1900)

This , like the case of Mutual Life Insurance Company v. unney, ante, 327, just decided, is an action on an insurance po icy issued by the company, the premiums on which were npai for years before the death of the insured. The facts, > P^^dings, (and the case went off on the P mgs, without any testimony,) are that on May 18, 1891, beinc^th^1106 COmPan^ i^ued a policy to Stephen P. Sears, he He nai 1 th er^e^c^ary named in the policy as well as the insured, newlectn i + rSt annual Prenaium and received the policy, but subsenna 4 Pay.the Premium due on May 18, 1892, aid all tb2fta\Pre^UmS' He lived until March 30, 1898, and ecutrix ThS W1 °W’ below, was appointed his ex-from 18Q9 6 ansv'er alleged non-payment of the premiums the said Ste^V a^S° “^^a^ subsequent to the failure of premium fan,en j ®ears to. make payment of the said annual quent to the Ue <°n -Sa^ P0^0^’ May 18, 1893, and subsement and aft said policy for failure to make said pay-and knew th»^ Sa^ ^^Pben P. Sears was fully informed sai policy had been by it declared lapsed and p. 346void for non-payment of premium, this defendant, through its agents, applied to said Stephen P. Sears to make restoration of said policy by making payment of said defaulted premium and having the said policy restored to force, but that said Stephen P. Sears refused to make such payment and refused longer to continue said policy or make any further payments thereon, and then and there elected to have the same terminated, and this defendant, relying upon the said election and determination of said Stephen P. Sears, at all times subsequent thereto treated said policy as lapsed, abandoned and terminated, and relying upon the said conduct of said Sears, abstained from taking any further action or step in relation to said policy, by way of notice or otherwise, in order to effect the cancellation and termination thereof.”

In view of what has been already decided in the case o tual Life Lnsurance Company N. Phinney, Executrix, an , it is needless to do more than note the fact that, as s . the answer,-after the insured had once defaultecm a , and a second default had occurred in May, 1893’ IP was made to him by the company, throug its agen , the policy, and that he declined to make any ur or to continue the policy, and elected to ave parties which election was accepted by the company, an p. 347to 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.