Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/319

 00F7EI V. URIVEBSAL UFB INS. 00. 307 �received by the complainant, nor, so far as the proofs show, did he know that such an order had been entered until March, 1878, when mention was made of it in a letter which he received from the secretary of the company. Under the cir- cumstances stated, the complainant restedfrom August, 1877, until February, 1878, -when it appears he wrote a letter, addresBed to the receiver of the Universal Life Insurance Company, which the proofs indicate was a letter of inquiry, and which was probably thus addreseed because he had beeu led to suppose, from Etalements made by the local agent of the company in August previous, that a receiver was in charge of the affairs of the company. To this letter the secretary of the company made answer by communication of date febru- ary 18, 1878, as follows: �" We beg leave to state to you that no receiver bas been appointed for this company, and, further, to state to you that we think it is quite unnec- essary to answer the questions you propound to the receiver, for the rea- 80n that your policy No. 4472 became absolutely forfeited, according t» its terms, for the non-payment of the premlum due August, 1877. You have, therefore, no such interest in the company's affairs as would war- rant any reply to your questions." �Thus, after the company, by its own agent, had refused to accept the premium offered on the day it was due, and had given the assured no notice of opportunity to pay it else- where, and he had been led to rest inactive for months, when first he sought information to which he was, under the circum- stances, then clearly entitled, he was curtly told, in substance, by the secretary of the company, that bis policy had become absolutely forfeited for non-payment of the August pre- mium, and that therefore he had no such iuterest in the company's affairs as would warrant a reply to bis inquiries. In this manner was the assured dealt with at a time when, upon a showing of the facts then existing, no court deserving the name of a court of equity would have hesitated to compel either the acceptance of the unpaid premiums for the pur- pose of keeping the policy in force, or the acceptance of a surrender of the policy as the basis of a right to a paid-up policy, as the policy-holder might elect. �But the complainant, still persistent in efforts to obtaiu ��� �