*1 Ins. Co. v. Ware. York Life New 1934). (Division B. Nov. 31402.] No. So. 359.
[157 (Division 3, 1934.) B. Dec. 31402.] 894. No.
[157 So. *2 appellant. Leathers & Gulfport, Greaves, *3 Gulfport, appellee. & Ford, White Morse, Ethridge, opinion P. J., delivered the of the court. Appellee, plaintiff Mrs. B. Fannie Ware, was in the brought against appellant court below and suit on a *4 twenty-year pay policy for two thousand dollars issued upon George ap- the life L. husband of Ware, pellee. policy This had a loan value and a cash surrender George value, and at the date the said L. Ware obtained policy a loan on said it, had a loan value of one thousand twenty-four policy pro- four hundred dollars. The had a might, any during vision that the insured at time the life of the policy, provided assigned, it has not been chang’e beneficiary the by written notice to company. the Said policy had been in force twenty-four years when the loan procured George was by L. Ware. The ap- plication for loan signed the was not by Fannie D'. Ware, the beneficiary but the policy, application the for a change of beneficiary was made December prior 13th, application the for the loan on 9th, and January the change in beneficiary the policy payable was to the executor or administrator -of George L. im- Ware; but mediately upon securing the loan policy changed was back to Fannie D. Ware as beneficiary. Interest due on said loan paid from January 9 January 1925, 29, cent, and on that date the annual interest at per five the amount of due the loan was and payable. ad- This vance interest was not paid, under the terms of the policy, the whole and loan policy became due and payable, and the loan was secured a lien upon policy.
On October 3, 1925, the Insurance Company wrote L. George Ware the following letter:
“Mr. George Ware, L.
“1520 Hewes Ave., Miss.
“Gulfport,
“Dear Sir: Policy
“Re. No. 3,021,567 “Pursuant agreement a loan executed on 9th day January, a cash loan of one thousand four hundred twenty-four dollars upon was made security value of on policy the life L. George Ware. The interest due on said on policy day 29th Jan- having not been uary, paid, the principal said in- debtedness became and has been settled due, according the terms loan agreement, value. policy has no further
“Tours truly, John C. McCall.” George on August L. Ware died 2, 1931, without hav- ing repaid the loan on the interest thereon, *5 any taking, further shows,
or without far as the record so of, receipt letter thereto, action in reference after policy notifying had been him that the policy according payment terms to the debt, of his agreement, no value. it had further and that and loan George L. "Warethat letter from this It will be noted “premium out before and” struck were words showing on the the interest “interest,” all word policy paid, canceled. was that the had not been loan policy, had premiums as it due on the were course, Of no twenty having policy paid-up- existence been become a years.
Shortly prior George to-the death of L. at- an Ware, torney, knowing desperately that Ware was ill, under- inquire took to into the status all insurance held attorney him, and said wrote a letter the Mobile among policy, branch office reference to this others, following and received the letter from Sullivan, C. L. receipt cashier: “We are in of communication from our advising policy Home office us that the above numbered (on George lapsed Ware) nonpayment L. the life for premium January charged due 1925. 29, It was with twenty-four a loan four of one thousand hundred dollars and was in accordance with settled the terms agreement loan and is without further value.” It will noted from this letter he was advised lapsed nonpayment premiums policy had that the January 1925. letter was ob- 29, on This admitted over jections. brought
Suit county was in the court, which rendered judgment plaintiff, in favor of D. Ware, Fannie the difference twenty- between one thousand four hundred four dollars and two thousand dollars, the face of the policy, to-wit, six ninety-two hundred one dollars and judgment appeal prosecuted from cents, which an the circuit court was there affirmed, from the judgment appeal prosecuted. last-named
347. January George 9, 1925, Ware, on It will be seen that L. pledg of the full loan value a loan for the secured pay in security ing and was therefor, January terms under the in advance, terest on *6 whereupon and policy, loan the default, of the and made given payable. in He was all became due and interest dulgence when he 3, 1925, October that until from date policy applied company the to had notified that the was slightly in ex payment was which debt debt, the the policy and of that date, of the of the full value cess appears have policy to taken He canceled. was that said years, when six for almost to it no action in reference anything. paid having The or tendered died, without he policy two thousand death was the at full value of face long say he would before it be could how dollars. No one obligation. policy a matured became the died, and before policy only was time had at the the the value Therefore, were which value, surrender the cash loan value and the under to that, court assume for the It was error the same. policy continued in the case, of this circumstances the changed having policy bene as to the been force. The ficiary, change insured, and the available to which was application having the change made on the been the sign necessary to Fannie H. Ware it was not insured, Mutual application v. Williams Penn a loan. the Belzoni Bank of 649; 133 So. 160 Miss. Ins. Co., Life Hodges, So. 97. 132Miss. v.
It manifest that from the letter the Mobile branch company, referring premiums, the awas clerical showing and addition no there is as to au- the error,i thority agent company to bind of this the in reference thereto. George policy L. deceased, knew Ware,
The that the applied had been to his and indebtedness, made no ob- jection Suppose twenty years, thereto. he had lived on his loan had accumulated; the interest it would have policy. exceeded the face the This shows clear- it ly contemplation parties could not have been the require Company pay the Insurance the difference policy, between the amount due on the face and the principal insured, amount from It due interest. clearly meaning policy was of the Insurance Company only pay would due to the difference between the loan and surrender value interest, apply debt, satisfy if it should apply. and there was none to slightly the debt was in excess of the loan and Here nothing surrender due under value, liqui- to the when loan value was insured, its date the debt. judgment will reversed and the cause dismissed.
The Reversed and dismissed. Suggestion Error,.
On *7 Ethridge, opinion J.,P. delivered the of the court on suggestion of error. judgment
A in ap- favor of Mrs. Fannie D. Ware, the pellee here, was reversed and dismissed on November suggestion 5, and a 1934, has been filed here. As is the suggestion universal custom, the of error was referred judge to another opinion, than the one who wrote the by brought studied him, into conference and dis- by judges. cussed the We have decided to adhere to the respond former suggestion will conclusion, but to the of error. suggested
It is therein that this case is identical and on all fours with the case of York New Life Insurance Company Curry Ky. v. & Bros., 115 72 S. W. 736, Rep., 61 L. R. A. Am. St. 297, and that de the present cision therein should control in the case, should be followed unless the court should find that it is reasoning. present unsound in its In the case, the full policy in- loan of the and that borrowed, value was the payable in terest on said loan was advance at the next an- paid, policy, niversary if that the date of the not and, company The due. could declare whole debt interest the payable principal, in in with was excess advance, so the policy. In of loan of case the and surrender value the the Curry supra, & of New York Co. v. Bros., Life Insurance policy to the debt and at was there the time the company, there twelve dollars and .’canceled principal forty-seven more than the interest cents owing appellant occurred, default and the when the following: agreement “It is loan there contained the cent, (5) per per agreed of at rate five that interest paid upon anniversary loan annum shall said at the succeeding, annually there- of the insurance next part. party at of the first It is officeof said after, agreed although party that said not intended it is payment part of said loan until of first shall demand day August, 1909',on date said loan first of which payable, or until death shall and be due and become party said said of the whose life insured under is right party part to demand re- of first reserves paid.” payment provided duly It is said interest not agreed provided “It follows: was further any payment or said interest event the default any premium thirty on said said loan or of days they respectively due said after shall become option at the to be and shall be effect shall deemed party party part, to said of the surrendered said first customary part value of the first at cash surrender part party said of the the sur- then allowed first party part policies class, said the first render *8 part being party of the second in that liable to said case only of cash surrender balance said return of the deducting any and and said loan interest ex- value after penses provided it And further is as incurred thereon.” “ part party agreed of the second It is that said follows: deposited has said and its accumulations with said party part security of the first as collateral said loan, agreement, on the and terms conditions of and this agrees party covenants and to and with said of the first part by perform singular stipula- abide and all and agreement agreement. tions and contained in . this . . agreed It is that all conditions, limitations, and re- quirements policy except expressly of said as herein remain in full forcé.” modified, Kentucky above-quoted pro- The court held by pay- visions which the to be contrary public policy ment of the debt were void.
The contract in bar involved the case at is not a Ken tucky governed by contract, and is not the laws merely state. So state, the decision is one another binding upon and is not Such the courts this state. given respect decisions are studied and con such they may sideration as entitled to. In Black’s Law “ p. Judicial Precedent, sec. it said that: On questions general jurisprudence and the construction of domestic under a statutes, decisions made similar system legal prevailing may in another state cited persuasive respected authority, reasoning as for their judgment, approved, they if and followed but are not precedents. binding principle as The rule or stare applicable properly only decisis is as between the several judicial composing system, strictly courts same only speaking, in in court instances where the same which previous upon rendered a decision is called to abide repudiate authority degree it or it. of force or The to be accorded to a court of state, decision the chief one highest when cited to court of another state is not already measured doctrine. There are indeed, exceptional pages, noted in these cases which the one will follow courts of state the decisions the court of inquiry last into state, resort another without their
351 question where soundness, the concerns the construction foreign adopted legis of a of from statute or a the statute application lation another or the the local law state, foreign jurisdiction. special of a But, from aside these generally question cases, and the to where he decided is general jurisprudence one of or concerns lex or the fori interpretation the of domestic decisions rendered statutes, proper point, if another state are he cited in and .in may respectful be consideration if well entitled rea justice, supported by well promotive soned, and the general they authority, technically current but are not may precedents. of force decisions be followed, as Such reasoning hearing' approves if their the court the case and liberty disregard perfect them, conclusions. But it is at by prin respect and is this the not constrained in either ciples comity, and laws constitution the or the pages on comment also, United further See, States.” 410. between the case of a distinction We think there is supra, Curry & and Bros., York Ins. v. New Life Co. Curry this, the surrender in policy in the case bar, ease at by in- loan and was not exhausted value full loan value had in at bar, the case terest, whereas, interest exceeded loan and borrowed, been amount as stated a small surrender value original opinion. in the differentiate not if sufficient this distinction
But, the Ken- to follow still decline cases, we would two why tucky contract there a no reason court, see state. not valid would involved policies insurance in life values surrender Loan and persons to take and influence considerations, valuable are storm, stress of financial In times contracts. such money of them they frequently means savers, and are otherwise, would demands to meet borrowed can be many met. not be cases, right parties have a cases, in numerous we said As have contrary public to make contracts where not to law or policy. why person pledge no We see a reason should not his of insurance as collateral for a debt either company issuing with the or with some other person, provide in the contract if the debt that, so paid policy may contracted for is not due, when *10 applied satisfy to same. upon policy would
It be a difficult to secure loan a require company permit would an to insurance a debt carry policy, to accumulate in excess of the and to such policyholder until debt die, should the in case paid-up policy. Berry here, a surance, as v. Lamar Life Co., Insurance 887. Miss. So. So. 445, 145 We think the terms of the authorized com pany apply to the surrender to value the satisfaction of the loan. suggested suggestion
It is also error that the original opinion, in its reference the letter received from a branch unsound, officeat Mobile, Alabama, was ought and that such a statement be treated as an estoppel. agree We are with such unable contention. policy provides only vice-presi- president, The actuary, secretary, power dent, or has the or make modify any contract of or to extend time insurance, paying any company premium, and the shall not be representation promise given any by any or .bound person origi- above, other than the said in the and, we opinion, evidently nal letter to was referred a clerical error; the surrender value payment debt, of the the insured was notified “premium”
thereof. The word was in written the letter any do the branch but we not under cir- office, think, provision any or case, cumstances of the .operate estoppel, it would as an is no foundation there regard. e'stoppel in that suggestion arguments in The other error need responded will and it be overruled. to, not Suggestion of error overruled.