Legal Opinion
Mallory v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided November 10, 1893PublishedCited by 4 opinions
Error to Kent. (Grove, J.) Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMcGrath, J.
Plaintiff sues as the beneficiary named in a policy issued upon the life of her husband. The policy provided that—
“If the payment of the weekly premiums upon this policy shall be in arrears more than four weeks, this policy shall thereupon become void."
It also provided that—
“Agents are not authorized to make, alter, or discharge contracts, or waive forfeitures, 'or receive premiums on policies in arrears after the time allowed by the regulations of the company."
By the terms of the application, the insured “agrees to be governed by the rules and regulations" of the company. A receipt-book was…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Maier v. Fidelity Mut. Life Ass'nCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1897
- Randall v. Travelers InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1919
- Martin v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins.Michigan Supreme Court · 1936
- Hilt v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1896