Hodsdon v. Guardian Life Insurance
Cases that cite this one
34 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Church of God in Christ, Inc. v. Congregation Kehillath Jacob (Mass. App. Ct. 1975)
- Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. of Cal. v. O'Neil (Okla. 1913)
- Kidder v. Supreme Commandery United Order of the Golden Cross (Mass. 1906)
- Thomas v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance (Cal. 1904)
- Paloeian v. Day (Mass. 1938)
- Gechijian v. Richmond Insurance (Mass. 1937)
- Southern States Life Ins. Co. v. Dunckley (Ala. 1933)
- Equitable Life Assurance Society v. Brewer (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) 1928)
- Morristown Furniture Co. v. People's Nat. Fire Ins. (Tenn. 1923)
- New York Life Ins. v. Dumler (5th Cir. 1922)
- Hanover Fire Ins. v. Dallavo (6th Cir. 1921)
- Carroll v. New York Life Insurance (N.D. 1920)
- McDonald v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States (Iowa 1918)
- West v. National Casualty Co. (Ind. Ct. App. 1916)
- Modern Brotherhood of America Lodge v. Bailey (Okla. 1915)
- Pender v. . Insurance Co. (N.C. 1913)
- Pender v. North State Life Insurance (N.C. 1913)
- Security Mutual Life Insurance v. Riley (Ala. 1908)
- McNicholas v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America (Mass. 1906)
- Aetna Life Insurance v. Fallow (Tenn. 1903)
- Gray v. Standard Life & Accident Insurance (Mass. 1898)
- Hartford Life & Annuity Insurance v. Eastman (Neb. 1898)
- Williams v. Maine State Relief Ass'n (Me. 1896)
- Supreme Assembly, Royal Society of Good Fellows v. McDonald (N.J. 1896)
- Meadows v. Pacific Mutual Life Insurance (Mo. 1895)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Upon the payment of the cash premium and giving of the premium notes by the assured to the insurers, the policy became a binding contract; although by one of the conditions annexed, upon which it was declared to be made and accepted, it was to cease and determine in case of a failure to pay any premium note when due. The terms of the receipt given for the cash premium did not change the nature of the contract of insurance in this respect. The burden of proving a breach of this executory stipulation and an avoidance of the policy, by non-payment of one of the premium notes, was upon the defendants. Gray v. Gardner, 17 Mass. 188. Kingsley v. New England Insurance Co. 8 Cush. 393. Daniels v. Hudson
On the point whether the premium note in question had been paid, the evidence was conflicting, and was submitted to the jury with suitable instructions. Although an agent of the company had no authority to bind them by receiving payment of a premium note after it was due, the company might receive such payment at any time. If they received the amount of the note from their agent after it was due, they were bound to inform themselves of the time when it had been paid to him; and by receiving it from him without inquiry they waived the right to insist on the delay in the.payment as a ground of forfeiture of the policy. Exceptions overruled.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.