Sanders v. Independent Natl. Life Ins.
Sanders v. Independent Natl. Life Ins., 133 So. 451 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931).
Cited by
- Finch v. Baton Rouge Production Credit Association 154 So. 2d 60 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
- Succession of Jenkins 76 So. 2d 450 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
- Martin v. Fontenot 27 So. 2d 457 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
- Futorian v. Gerth 25 So. 2d 366 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
- De Salvo v. Doll 21 So. 2d 60 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
- Schroeder v. Morris 20 So. 2d 437 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
- Francis v. Blache 17 So. 2d 29 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944
- Richardson v. Charles Kirsch & Co. 187 So. 1 La. 1939
- Richardson v. Charles Kirsch Co. 179 So. 631 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
- Williams Inv. Co. v. McWilliams 142 So. 611 La. 1932
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Newton v. National Life Ins. Co. U. S. A. 161 La. 357
Opinion text
WESTERFIELD, J. The plaintiff, a beneficiary under a policy of industrial life insurance, brings this suit for $126, the face value of the policy. The case is defended upon the ground that the policy had lapsed because of the failure to pay premiums. Answering this contention plaintiff claims that an attempt was made to pay the premiums, but that the defendant insurance company refused to accept further payments because of the fact that someone living in the same house with her had contracted tuberculosis and the officials of the company were, unwilling to take-the risk of infection, which further transactions with her might involve. Of course, if the premiums were tendered and arbitrarily refused the policy did not lapse. Newton v. National Life Ins. Co., 161 La. 357 , 108 So. 769 . The testimony of plaintiff and that of her daughter, who testified in her behalf, is in hopeless conflict with that of the manager and the cashier of defendant company, but Mr. Johnston Armstrong, a member of this bar, without any interest in the litigation, testified that the plaintiff called upon him and endeavored to have the company accept premiums and that he called at the office of defendant company for that purpose and was there informed that the premiums would not be accepted for a sufficient reason, and “the courts were open to him if he had any claim.” His testimony is sufficient to resolve the doubt created by the conflicting evidence in favor of the plaintiff. This was evidently the view of the trial court and we believe its judgment was correct. For the reasons assigned the judgment appealed from is affirmed.