Kulp v. Brant

• Decision Date: 11 July 1894
• Docket Number: 80
• Citation: 29 A. 729,162 Pa. 222
• Parties: Aaron K. Kulp v. Catharine Brant, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

29 A. 729

162 Pa. 222

Aaron K. Kulp v. Catharine Brant, Appellant

No. 80

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

July 11, 1894

Argued February 1, 1894

Appeal, No. 80, Jan. T., 1894, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. Montgomery Co., June T., 1891, No. 5, on feigned issue in favor of plaintiff. Affirmed.

Feigned issue to determine ownership of proceeds of life insurance policy, paid into court. Before WEAND, J.

The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court.

This necessarily disposes of all the assignments of error; they are overruled, the judgment affirmed, and the appeal is dismissed at costs of appellant.

N. H Larzelere, W. M. Goodman with him, for appellant. -- Appellee is bound by the representations made by the husband when the assignment was made: Jones v. Bldg. Assn., 94 Pa. 215; Mundorff v. Wickersham, 63 Pa. 87; Keough v. Leslie, 92 Pa. 424.

Appellant was discharged by the change of obligations: Ayers v. Wattson, 57 Pa. 360; Moorehead v. Duncan, 82 Pa. 488; Shrewsbury Saving Inst.'s Ap., 94 Pa. 312; Holt v. Bodey, 18 Pa. 212; Kemmerer's Ap., 125 Pa. 292.

Kulp was not an innocent holder as to amount of antecedent debt: McCutcheon's Ap., 99 Pa. 133.

Montgomery Evans, Louis M. Childs with him, for appellee. -- The misrepresentations of a principal to a surety in the absence of the creditor are not admissible to discharge the surety: Johnston v. Patterson, 114 Pa. 398.

A married woman may assign her personal property as collateral for her husband's benefit and it cannot be repudiated except for fraud by the assignee: Dando's Ap., 94 Pa. 76; Brown's Ap., 94 Pa. 362; Powell's Ap., 98 Pa. 403.

Even though the debt were tolled by the statute of limitations, the collateral remained liable: Hartranft's Est., 153 Pa. 530; Hutchinson v. Woodwell, 107 Pa. 509.

Before GREEN, WILLIAMS, McCOLLUM, DEAN and FELL, JJ.

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE DEAN:

On September 2, 1868, Nathan R. Brant took out a policy of insurance on his life in the sum of $2,000, in the Aetna Life Insurance Company. The beneficiary in the policy was his wife, Catharine Brant, and it was declared to be for her sole separate use and benefit. The annual premium was $67.52. On the 2d of August, 1876, Mrs. Brant, joined by her husband under their seals duly attested, executed a formal transfer of the policy to Kulp, this plaintiff, as collateral for a debt owing by the husband to Kulp, and the assignment stipulates that Kulp is to have "all benefit and advantage to be derived therefrom, to the extent of such interest as he may have when said policy becomes a claim." Brant died July 10, 1890, and the company, on being notified of his death, and also that there were conflicting claims to the policy by Kulp and Mrs. Brant, paid the amount of it into court. An issue was then framed between Kulp as plaintiff and Mrs. Brant as defendant, to determine their rights, which was submitted to the court below without a jury for judgment.

At the trial, Mrs. Brant contended that, at the time of the assignment of the policy, the actual indebtedness of her husband to Kulp, for which it was collateral, was only $500; that to induce her to execute it, her husband, acting for Kulp, represented to her his indebtedness was but $300, and he was to get the same day an additional $200; that, relying on this statement of her husband, who, she alleges, was Kulp's agent to procure the assignment, she executed it. Kulp contended that the assignment was collateral for a debt of $1,220.29, which, with interest and subsequent payment of annual premiums by him, more than equaled the whole amount of the policy.

The court below found as facts: (1) That the actual indebtedness of Brant to Kulp on the day of the assignment, and immediately prior thereto, was $684.29; that on same day and immediately after it was made, Kulp made a further loan to Brant of $536, making the whole indebtedness as of that date, $1,220.29. (2) That this last loan was made in consideration of the assignment of the policy as security for the whole indebtedness. (3) That Kulp had paid after the assignment annual premiums amounting to $364.26, and had received dividends, $128.88. (4) Mrs. Brant did not know how much her husband owed Kulp, and he, Kulp, had no communication with her upon the subject until 1883, when he received an order from Brant to draw the dividends. (5) Kulp had no knowledge of any representations made by Brant to his wife to induce her to execute the assignment, and there is no competent evidence that any were made.

Computing interest on Kulp's whole debt, and adding thereto the amount of annual premiums paid by him, less dividends received, the policy did not pay Kulp's debt in full, and so the whole fund in court, less costs, was directed to be paid him, and judgment entered in his favor. From that judgment Mrs. Brant brings this appeal.

There are ten assignments of error, only three of which are important in determining the rights of the parties to the fund. The appellant complains that the court erred: (1) In not finding as a fact that Mrs. Brant was induced to make the assignment by false and fraudulent representations on the part of her husband. (2) In the conclusion of law that, even if her husband practiced a fraud upon his wife, Kulp, being no party to it, stands in the light of an innocent purchaser for value without notice. (3) In...