delivered the opinion of the court.
McLaughlin v. National Protective Legion, 184 Ill. App. 597 (1914)
Jan. 22, 1914
·
Illinois Appellate Court
·
Gen. No. 18,563
184 Ill. App. 597
Hattie Isabella McLaughlin, Defendant in Error, v. National Protective Legion, Plaintiff in Error.
Gen. No. 18,563.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Edwin K. Walker, Judge, presiding.
Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1912.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed January 22, 1914.
Statement of the Case.
Action by Hattie Isabella McLaughlin against National Protective Legion to recover the sum of five hundred dollars claimed to be due her on a policy of insurance in which she had been named beneficiary and which had been issued by defendant upon the life of plaintiff’s husband, Patrick McLaughlin. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff for five hundred dollars, defendant brings error.
Bertrand Lichtenberger, for plaintiff in error.
Emil A. Meyer, for defendant in error.
*598Abstract of the Decision.
1. Insurance, § 664*—when evidence insufficient to show forfeiture for failure to pay assessments in time. In an action by a beneficiary on a policy of insurance where the defense is that the insured had been suspended for failure to pay certain monthly assessments in the time required by the provisions of the policy, a verdict in favor of plaintiff held to be sustained by the law and the evidence, it appearing that plaintiff had made payments to an agent of the defendant having apparent authority to make collections and that plaintiff had money to her credit in the hands of the defendant in excess of the amount necessary to pay all assessments for the months in question when they became due.
2. Insurance, § 611*—burden of proving facts constituting a forfeiture. The burden of showing a failure to pay assessments from which a forfeiture is claimed to have arisen is upon the insurer.
3. Payment, § 28*—when receipt admissible in evidence. In an action on an insurance policy, admission in evidence of receipts given by an agent having apparent authority to collect assessments held not error, for the reason that no reference to the policy sued on appears on their face where they are introduced in connection with plaintiff’s testimony explaining them.