Cayford

This is an action brought to recover upon, a policy of life insurance. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; upon which judgment was entered. The defendant’s motion for a new trial was denied, and from the judgment and order denying its motion for a new trial the defendant prosecutes this appeal.

This case has once been before the supreme court upon an appeal taken from an order sustaining a demurrer. {Cayford v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 144 Cal. 763 , [ 78 Pac. 258 ].)

The policy in question was issued on the life of Richard N. Cayford, plaintiff’s husband, payable to plaintiff as beneficiary. It was issued March 20, 1902, and called for the . payment of a semi-annual premium on the 20th of March and September in each year. The policy provided that the failure to pay any premium when due would render the policy void.

The second semi-annual premium fell due September 20, 1902, and was not paid. On October 5, 1902, the insured died. The testimony disclosed that J. N. Pittman had solicited the insurance, and had collected the first premium. On the 18th of September, two days before the second premium fell due, he called to collect this premium. Mrs. Cayford told him…