Adams' Adm'r v. Reed.

• Decision Date: 24 June 1896
• Citation: Adams' Adm'r v. Reed., 36 S.W. 568 (Ky. Ct. App. 1896)
• Parties: ADAMS' ADM'R v. REED.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

36 S.W. 568

ADAMS' ADM'R v. REED.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 24, 1896

Appeal from circuit court, Simpson county.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by India Reed against the Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company of Newark, N. J., and David C. Adams' administrator on a life insurance policy issued by such company on the life of David C. Adams, payable to his wife and after the death of his wife assigned to plaintiff. The defendant company answered, admitting its liability, and paid the money to a receiver under orders of the court. From a judgment for plaintiff, the administrator appeals. Reversed.

G. H Galloway, C. W. Milliken, Whitesides & Moore, and Edward W Hine, for appellant.

Thomas H. Hines, Geo. C. Harris, and Goodnight & Roark, for appellee.

HAZELRIGG J.

In 1884, David C. Adams married the daughter of the appellee Mrs. Reed, and shortly thereafter insured his life in the Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company of Newark, N. J., in the sum of $1,500. The policy was payable to his wife if living at his death, and, if she was dead, then to the children born of their marriage, and, if none, then to the executor, administrator, or assigns of the insured. In April 1887, the wife died, childless. In September of that year the premium was in arrears, and the policy was about to become worthless. The insured, then, with the consent of the company, assigned the policy to the appellee, who paid the premium and the re-examination fee, and who continued to pay the annual premium until in 1893, when the insured died. His brother, the appellant, qualified as administrator, and set up a claim to the insurance. The appellee thereupon brought this suit against the company for the sum due on the policy, making the administrator a party. The company answered, admitting the liability, and under subsequent orders of the court paid the money to the receiver. The sole question raised by the pleadings of the appellee and the appellant administrator is whether, at the time of the assignment of the policy, the mother-in-law had an insurable interest in the life of her son-in-law. If she had not, the fund, less the amounts due appellee for premiums and interest paid by her, belong to the administrator for the payment of the debts of the insured, who died insolvent. The facts relied on to show the existence of such an interest are thus set up in the appellee's petition: That the original beneficiary, the wife of the insured, was the daughter of the appellee; that after her death the insured continued to reside and live with the plaintiff, and, as he had done before his wife's death, he continued to assist the plaintiff and her unmarried daughter to keep house, and to provide something for the family to eat, all living together as one family, each contributing to assist and help the other; that she relied upon his assistance, and he rendered it as much as he had done before his wife's death; that his relation to her was that of a kind son to his mother; that, having no husband, she was dependent on her son-in-law, and looked to him to help her in the discharge of her household duties, and to help provide for the wants of the family, consisting of herself, the insured, an unmarried daughter of some 19 years of age, and a son of 15 years; that when the policy was about to lapse she requested the insured to have his mother or his brothers carry it or help carry it, and they declined; that at the time of the assignment, and for a considerable time thereafter, the insured continued to live with her as indicated, and to render the assistance named. In her amended petition she avers that at the time of her daughter's death, in April, 1887, she, with her family, was living with and at the house of her son-in-law, and that for himself and wife he had agreed to furnish and was furnishing one-half of all the meat, flour, meal, sugar, coffee, lard, in fact all the groceries for the entire family, and after his wife's death he agreed to continue to furnish one-half of said groceries and the plaintiff agreed to furnish the other half, and they lived as one family together, he furnishing one-half and plaintiff the other half, under an arrangement, for an indefinite length of time, and that this agreement, contract, and relation existed at the time of the assignment of the policy to her; that she owned a small farm, some five miles in the country, and her son-in-law helped her to look after that, and after its renting and the collection of its rents; that she was dependent on him as a protector of herself and family; that she was frail, had but one son, and the insured, as a dutiful and kind son, did many acts of kindness towards her; that, not knowing whether it would be the pleasure of the company to have her...