Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Schaefer
94 U.S. 457 (1876)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Schaefer, 94 U.S. 457 (1876)

Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Schaefer

94 U.S. 457

Syllabus

1. Within the scope of the professional employment of an attorney, the communications made to him by his client are privileged, and, without the consent of the latter, he should neither be required nor permitted by the courts of the United States to testify concerning them.

2. A policy of life insurance originally valid does not cease to be so by the cessation of the assured party's interest in the life insured, unless such be the necessary effect of the provisions of the instrument itself. So held where, subsequently to effecting an insurance by husband and wife upon their joint lives, payable to the survivor on the death of either, they were divorced a vinculo matrimonii, and she, having thereafter paid the premiums to the time of his death, brought suit on the policy.

3. Any person has a right to procure an insurance on his own life, and assign it to another, provided it be not done by way of cover for a wager policy.

The facts are set forth in the opinion of the Court.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.