Allen v. Hudson
| Decision Date | 09 October 1929 |
| Docket Number | No. 8514.,8514. |
| Citation | 35 F.2d 330 |
| Parties | ALLEN v. HUDSON et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
W. G. Dinning, of Helena, Ark., for appellant.
Brewer & Cracraft, of Helena, Ark., for appellees.
Before KENYON and VAN VALKENBURGH, Circuit Judges.
The facts in this case are practically without dispute and are fairly stated in the briefs of both parties. May 1, 1919, E. M. Allen, appellant, and James A. Hudson, appellee, became partners in an insurance business operated under the name of E. M. Allen Company. Allen had a 55 per cent. and Hudson had a 45 per cent. interest in the business. It was decided between them that a policy of insurance should be executed on the life of each of the partners for the benefit of the partnership. Accordingly, the Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York issued two policies in the sum of $10,000 each — one on the life of Edward M. Allen and the other on the life of James A. Hudson. In each policy the E. M. Allen Company was named as beneficiary, and in all cases the premiums were paid out of the earnings of the business without regard to the extent of ownership of each partner, and were charged to expense account. October 28, 1927, the partners entered into a dissolution agreement which contained the following clause:
Hudson at once surrendered the Allen policy to the insurance company, and demanded the cash surrender value thereof. Allen thereupon made demand for 55 per cent. of said cash surrender value. The insurance company, for protection, invoked the jurisdiction of the court under Act May 8, 1926, 44 Stat. 416 (28 USCA § 41(26). The cash surrender value of the policy, in the sum of $1,328.80, was deposited in court, and the insurance company asked that this fund be paid to the person entitled to receive it. In this proceeding Allen and Hudson are named as defendants. Both filed answer, and the case was tried between them as principals. The court found in favor of Hudson, and Allen prosecutes this appeal.
Appellant filed the following assignments of error:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
First-Columbus Nat. Bank v. D. S. Pate Lumber Co.
...v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 197 Mo. 513; Grigsby v. Russell, 222 U.S. 149, 56 L.Ed. 133; Wellhouse v. United Paper Co., 29 F.2d 886; Allen v. Hudson, 35 F.2d 330, 331; White v. Brotherhood of American Yeoman, 99 1071; Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Kimball, 112 A. 708; Case Note to Ritter v. Smith, 2 L.......
-
Hunter v. Federal Life Ins. Co.
...Phœnix Mutual Life Ins. Co., 8 Cir., 91 F.2d 141, 146. 4 Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Bondurant, 6 Cir., 27 F.2d 464, 465, 466; Allen v. Hudson, 8 Cir., 35 F.2d 330, 331; Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Morris, 9 Cir., 61 F.2d 104, 105; Treinies et al. v. Sunshine Mining Co., 9 Cir., 99 F.......
-
Durr Drug Co. v. United States, 8852.
...time did he have any interest therein which he could transfer or assign. Wellhouse v. United Paper Co., 5 Cir., 29 F.2d 886; Allen v. Hudson, 8 Cir., 35 F.2d 330; Ferguson v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co., 102 N.Y. Appellee does not question the propriety of applying the exclusion prov......
-
Mims Hotel Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 6135.
...v. Dewees, 2 Black 613, 17 L.Ed. 309; 26 R.C.L. 1219. The policy as a whole was an asset of the paper company." See also Allen v. Hudson, 8 Cir., 35 F.2d 330; Williamson v. Williamson Paint Co., 113 W.Va. 744, 169 S.E. The question as to whether the policy was the property of taxpayer or th......