{
  "id": 1411213,
  "name": "Columbian Mutual Life Assurance Society v. Whitehead",
  "name_abbreviation": "Columbian Mutual Life Assurance Society v. Whitehead",
  "decision_date": "1937-02-08",
  "docket_number": "4-4518",
  "first_page": "598",
  "last_page": "600",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "193 Ark. 598"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "4 A. L. R. 886",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "95 S. E. 811",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "81 W. Va. 663",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "W. Va.",
      "case_ids": [
        8634774
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/w-va/81/0663-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "68 S. W. 851",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "139 Ky. 567",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ky.",
      "case_ids": [
        4397147
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ky/139/0567-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 276,
    "char_count": 3578,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.541,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.693863339023485e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5296177499151495
    },
    "sha256": "23bbd58f92d0be265105cea257ab83539e1c6899cc54f30c886d0fae52d0ea36",
    "simhash": "1:772e3e110ddf9297",
    "word_count": 621
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:27:08.157459+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Columbian Mutual Life Assurance Society v. Whitehead."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Griffin Smith, C. J.\nAppellee is insured under appellant\u2019s life, health, and accident policy, by the terms of which he is entitled to stipulated loan values. Appellee applied to appellant for a loan, and it was refused, whereupon suit .was filed in chancery. A demurrer to the complaint was overruled and appellant declined to plead further.\nAfter finding what amount appellee was entitled to receive as a loan, the decree recites that \u201cDefendant is hereby ordered, upon plaintiff\u2019s request for the proper blanks for making a loan, to furnish plaintiff with same, and when plaintiff properly executes said blanks and delivers them duly executed * * .* to make the loan.\u201d\nAppellant is a foreign corporation. When the policy of insurance was issued to appellee in August, 1920, appellant had been admitted to do business in this State. Summons was served on the commissioner of insurance. There is no showing that appellant maintains any office in the state, or that any of the corporation\u2019s executive officers are within the jurisdiction of the court.\nWe are of the opinion that, under the pleadings, specific performance will not lie. \u201cAn agreement to borrow a sum of money and give security for it cannot be specifically enforced; and this is also true of an agreement to lend money, whether on security or not.\u201d 58 C. J., p. 1055. \u201cAs a general rule specific performance will not be enforced of an executory agreement either to borrow or lend money.\u201d 25 R. C. L., p. 231.\nAnnotations at page 895, 4 A. L. R., are as follows: \u201cProvisions giving the insured a right to borrow on the policy after a certain number of premiums have been paid are now commonly found in life insurance policies. This right in many instances is a potent factor in inducing the taking of a policy. It is a part of the contract, and the insured is entitled to loans in accordance with the conditions stated in such provisions, and clearly has the right to maintain an action for damages in case the insurer refuses to make a loan according to its contract.\u201d\nIn New York Life Ins. Co. v. Pope, 139 Ky. 567, 68 S. W. 851, it was said: \u201cThe measure of damages for breach of a contract by defendant to make plaintiff a loan is the difference between the rate of interest at which the defendant agreed to furnish the money and the rate, not exceeding the legal rate, which plaintiff was required to pay elsewhere, in the absence of an averment that the money was desired for a special use known to the defendant, and that it could not be procured elsewhere.\u201d Also, in Hubbard v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 81 W. Va. 663, 95 S. E. 811, 4 A. L. R. 886, it was held that \u201ca breach of an agreement to make a loan upon a life policy, where the insured was compelled to borrow money on other collateral and pay a higher rate of interest, insured may recover the excess interest and reasonable value of his services in procuring the loan, but not for the use of his other collateral.\u201d\nThere is no allegation that appellee was unable to borrow elsewhere. Neither is it claimed that appellee, through appellant\u2019s refusal to make the loan, would be subjected to inconveniences or losses of a special nature known to appellant for which compensation could not be computed in an action at law.\nWe conclude that the demurrer should have been sustained. The decree is reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to sustain the demurrer.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Griffin Smith, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Stevens & Stevens, for appellant.",
      "McKay McKay and Whitley $ Utley, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Columbian Mutual Life Assurance Society v. Whitehead.\n4-4518\nOpinion delivered February 8, 1937.\nStevens & Stevens, for appellant.\nMcKay McKay and Whitley $ Utley, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0598-01",
  "first_page_order": 616,
  "last_page_order": 618
}