New York Life Ins. Co. v. Sisson
19 F. 2d 410, 1926 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1763 (1926)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In an action in equity to rescind a contract for fraud, the plaintiff is not required to tender or offer to return the consideration received prior to filing suit; the court can condition the granting of relief upon the return of such consideration.
Facts:
- On July 22, 1924, an insurance company (plaintiff) issued a life insurance policy for $25,000 to Jacob Silverstein.
- The policy contained a clause making it incontestable after two years from its date of issuance.
- The plaintiff alleged that Silverstein had procured the policy by making fraudulent misrepresentations in his application.
- On June 16, 1926, just over a month before the policy was set to become incontestable, Jacob Silverstein died.
Procedural Posture:
- On June 16, 1926, the plaintiff insurance company filed a bill in equity in the District Court against Jacob Silverstein and his committee, seeking cancellation of the policy.
- After learning Silverstein had died that same day, the plaintiff took action to have an administrator appointed for his estate.
- The register of wills appointed S. A. Sisson as administrator.
- The plaintiff then filed an amended bill, naming S. A. Sisson, in his capacity as administrator, as the defendant.
- The defendant, S. A. Sisson, filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's bill, arguing that the plaintiff had failed to return or offer to return the insurance premiums before commencing the suit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff seeking to rescind an insurance policy in a court of equity on the grounds of fraud need to tender or offer to return the premiums paid before filing the suit for cancellation?
Opinions:
Majority - Thomson, District Judge.
No. A plaintiff suing in equity to rescind a contract does not need to have made a tender of the consideration received to the other party before commencing the action. The court distinguishes between legal rescission and equitable rescission. In an action at law, which is based on the theory that the contract has already been rescinded by the party's own act, the plaintiff must restore the status quo by returning the consideration before suing. In contrast, a bill in equity is an action brought to obtain a rescission from the court. In such a case, the plaintiff merely asks the court to set aside the contract and expresses a willingness to perform whatever conditions the court deems necessary to impose, such as the return of premiums, as a term of the final decree. Furthermore, the plaintiff here had no adequate remedy at law, as it could not simply wait to be sued, because the incontestability clause would soon bar its fraud defense.
Analysis:
This case clearly delineates the procedural difference between legal and equitable rescission, a fundamental concept in contract law. The decision solidifies the principle that a pre-suit tender of consideration is not a prerequisite for an equitable action, distinguishing it from an action at law. This is particularly significant for plaintiffs, like insurers facing an incontestability-clause deadline, who need to take affirmative action to void a contract for fraud. The ruling provides a practical pathway for seeking judicial cancellation without the procedural hurdle of a prior tender, leaving the restoration of the status quo to the discretion of the court as part of the equitable remedy.
