Prudential Insurance v. Cottingham

Page, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This suit was brought by the appellee to recover upon a policy of insurance on the life of one Charles J. Cottingham issued by the appellant. The facts as they appear in the record, may be briefly stated as follows: In the application, made by the terms of the policy a part of the contract of insurance, the insured stated he was born on the 7th August, 1882, that is, was over twenty years old at the time the policy was issued, on the 19th February, 1903. If this were correct the insured’s estate at the time of his death on the 19th of July, 1903, was entitled to the full sum of $1,000; but if he was then in fact, under 18 years of age, by the provisions of the contract, it would have been entitled only to the sum of $400.29.

After the death of the insured, letters of administration were taken out by his mother, who presented to the appellant the necessary proofs of loss, in which she represented that the deceased was born the seventh of August, 1885. If this is correct, the insured was under eighteen years of age when his application was made to the company and his estate at his death, is entitled only to the sum of $400. After some discussion between the agent of the company and the adminis- ³²¹ tratrix, and also after the latter had failed to produce other evidence as to the age of the deceased, “she consented to make settlement of the claim under the said policy, for the sum of $389.99;’' and upon receiving a check therefor signed the following paper. “Aug. 4th,- 1903. Received from the Prudential Insurance Co. of America $400.29 in full for all claims under the within policy terminated by the death of the insured.

(Signed) Maggie C. Brandt Administratrix.” Evidence was offered that the insured was- in fact born at the date given by'him in his application, and the Court below so found. Subsequently the mother becoming insane and so continuing, the appellee was appointed administrator d. b. n. in her stead, and brought this suit to recover the residue of the sum alleged to be due under the policy, and this appeal is from the judgment of the Court against the appellant. The appellant having pleaded that the action of the administratrix in executing the receipt as above set forth and that the same was a “full and complete release and discharge,. &c.,” the appellee in his replication thereto replied, that the administratrix, had made the receipt, without an order of the Orphans’ Court to release the defendant, &c.;” to which replication the appellee demurred, and the Court below sustained the demurrer. So that the first question presented by the record is, did the administratrix have power without the order of the Orphans’ Court to discharge the