McMaster v. New York Life Insurance Company (183 U.S. 25)
This was an action brought by Fred. A. McMaster, administrator of the estate of Frank E. McMaster, deceased, against the New York Life Insurance Company on five policies of insurance of $1,000 each upon the life of Frank E. McMaster.

The applications were dated December 12, and the policies December 18, 1893. The premiums for a year in advance were paid and the policies delivered December 26, 1893.

McMaster died January 18, 1895, and the defense was that the insurance had been forfeited by failure in payment of the second annual premiums on or before January 12, 1895, that is to say, within thirty days after December 12, 1894, when the company contended they became due.

The company alleged in a substituted and amended answer that the policies were executed and delivered December 12, 1893, and set forth:

'2. This defendant, for further answer, says that said application is dated the 12th day of December, 1893, and asked the issuing of five policies of $1,000 each upon the life of the said Frank E. McMaster, deceased. Said application also contained a request that said five policies each should be issued, dated, and take effect the same date as the application, namely, the 12th day of December, 1893, and said request was complied with, and the policies were so issued.

'This defendant grants to the insured in said defendant company a grace of one month on the payment of premiums, which extended the day of payment of premiums from December 12th, 1894, as in the policies issued to said Frank E. McMaster, deceased, late as the 12th day of January, 1895, but not later.

'3. This defendant, for further answer, says that payment of the premiums due upon said policies were not paid within the time prescribed as aforesaid, and that said Frank E. McMaster died on the 18th day of January, 1895, six days after said policies had lapsed and were forfeited for nonpayment of premiums as required.

  *  *  *  *

'6. This defendant, further answering said petition, says that said application is a part of said policies, in each case, that said assured received and accepted said policies during his lifetime, and had them all in his possession for a long time, and was aware and knew, or could have known, the contents in each policy.

'That said assured had paid the premiums when said policies were delivered to him; that by reason of said assured's acceptance of said policies, his representative, the plaintiff herein, is estopped from denying the date of said policies or claiming that said policies should have a different date from the application, and is estopped for the reasons above stated from claiming that said words, to wit, 'Please date policy same as application, were not in said application when insured signed same, for by accepting said policies the assured waived said right to object, if said words were inserted, as alleged in petition, after the signing of the application, which this defendant denies.'

The case was tried by the circuit court without a jury; special findings of fact made; and judgment rendered in favor of defendant. 90 Fed. 40.

Plaintiff prosecuted a writ of error from the circuit court of appeals, and the judgment was affirmed. 40 C. C. A. 119, 99 Fed. 856. The writ of certiorari was then allowed.

Pending the trial below, plaintiff filed a bill in epuity for the reformation of the policies, and the circuit court granted the relief prayed. 78 Fed. 33. On appeal this decree was reveresed (30 C. C. A. 532, 57 U.S. App. 638, 87 Fed. 63), and an application to this court for certiorari was denied. 171 U.S. 687, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 944. The Circuit Court of Appeals expressed the opinion in that case that no recovery could be had at law or in equity, and accordingly the circuit court in this case, although of opinion that plaintiff was entitled to recover, gave judgment for defendant.

Separate opinions were given by the judges of the court of appeals, Sanborn and Thayer, JJ., concurring in affirming, and Caldwell, J., dissenting. 

Notes
Uncategorized United States Supreme Court decision