Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Lathrop, Administrator was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a life insurance policy was validly issued. The case involved a policy issued by Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company to a man named William Lathrop. The policy was issued in 1868, but Lathrop died in 1871 before the policy was fully paid. The administrator of Lathrop's estate, Charles Lathrop, sued Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company for the proceeds of the policy. The Supreme Court held that the policy was validly issued and that the proceeds should be paid to the estate. The Court found that the policy was issued in accordance with the terms of the policy and that the company had not acted in bad faith. The Court also found that the company had not breached any of its obligations under the policy. The Court concluded that the policy was valid and that the proceeds should be paid to the estate. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the policy issued by Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company to William Lathrop was validly issued and that the proceeds should be paid to the estate. The Court found that the company had not acted in bad faith and had not breached any of its obligations under the policy. The Court concluded that the policy was valid and that the proceeds should be paid to the estate.

In Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Lathrop, Administrator, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a life insurance policy issued by the plaintiff company had lapsed due to nonpayment of premiums. The majority opinion held that it had not and that the defendant administrator was liable for payment of benefits under the policy. Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that there were no facts in dispute which could be used as evidence to support a finding of liability; secondly, he contended that even if such facts existed they would not be sufficient to establish liability because they did not show any agreement between the parties regarding premium payments or other conditions necessary for keeping an insurance contract in force. He concluded by stating his belief that "the law does not impose upon insurers obligations beyond those expressed or necessarily implied in their contracts."