Atkins v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc. of United States

• Decision Date: 03 March 1882
• Citation: 132 Mass. 395
• Parties: Elisha Atkins v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

132 Mass. 395

Elisha Atkins v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

March 3, 1882

[Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material]

Suffolk. Contract for money had and received, with a count alleging that the defendant issued a policy of insurance on the life of Warren Fisher; that the policy was assigned to the plaintiff, who became the legal holder thereof, with the consent of the defendant; that the defendant agreed with the plaintiff that, in consideration of the plaintiff's surrendering the policy, the defendant would pay the plaintiff the value thereof; that the plaintiff thereupon surrendered the policy to the defendant, but the defendant refused to pay the plaintiff the value thereof. The answer admitted the issuing of a policy on the life of Fisher; alleged that Fisher became a bankrupt; that his assignees in bankruptcy assigned their interest in the policy to the plaintiff, who assigned it to one Henry T. Blodget; that the wife of Fisher assigned her interest in the policy to Blodget; that the defendant had paid Blodget the full value of the policy; and that Blodget had paid the plaintiff more than the value of the plaintiff's interest in the policy. Trial in the Superior Court, before Pitman, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions in substance as follows:

On March 13, 1872, the defendant, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York, issued to Warren Fisher a paid-up policy of insurance in the sum of $ 4000 upon his life, which sum it agreed to pay "at their office in the city of New York, either to the said Warren Fisher, his executors, administrators or assigns, on the thirtieth day of January in the year eighteen hundred and eighty-six; or, should the same person whose life is hereby assured as above die before, then, in sixty days after due notice and satisfactory proof of the death, to Virginia E., wife of the said Warren Fisher, her executors, administrators or assigns."

On May 5, 1874, Warren Fisher, upon his own petition, was adjudged a bankrupt, and on June 18, 1874, M. F. Dickinson, Jr. and R. M. Morse, Jr. were duly elected and qualified as his assignees. Among other assets of his estate, they received from Warren Fisher the above-named policy, and they held the same as belonging to his estate until December 26, 1879.

Before December 23, 1879, the defendant became desirous of procuring the surrender of this policy; and, on said December 23, wrote to H. T. Blodget, its agent in Boston, offering to give $ 3000 for the policy, if the same could be purchased within thirty days, and stating that according to its records Warren Fisher and his wife were alone interested in the policy, but that the agent must satisfy himself that there was no other claim upon it before purchasing.

After the receipt of this letter by Blodget on December 24, steps were taken to procure the purchase of said policy. This was finally accomplished; and, on December 26, the assignees in bankruptcy transferred all their interest in the policy, with certain other assets of Warren Fisher, to the plaintiff, and received from him therefor the sum of $ 2000.

On the same day the plaintiff made an assignment of all his interest in the policy, and of all money payable under the same, to Blodget. The plaintiff received from Blodget, at the time of the delivery to him of the policy and the above assignments, the following receipt: "December 26, 1879. Received of Elisha Atkins, policy number B, 27,646, on the life of Warren Fisher; said policy forwarded to the Equitable Life Assurance Society. Duly surrendered for cash value. H. T. Blodget, Manager."

On the same day, Virginia E. Fisher executed an assignment under seal, of which the following is a copy: "For value received, to me in hand paid, and for other valuable considerations, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, I hereby request the Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States to give the surrender value of, and to purchase, policy No. B, 27,646, issued by the said society, and all money which may be payable under the same. And I hereby surrender the said policy, and assign, transfer and set over all my right, title and interest thereto to said society." Warren Fisher and Blodget also assigned their interests in the policy to the defendant; and Blodget signed a receipt for $ 3000, in full of all claims under the policy.

The original policy, and the foregoing assignments and receipt, were forwarded to the home office in New York, with a letter, signed by Blodget, in which he recited the assignments, stated that the assignment from the plaintiff to himself was to enable him to collect a debt due him from Warren Fisher, and requested a check payable to his order. This letter had the following heading: "The Equitable Life Assurance Society, 120 Broadway, New York. H. T. Blodget, manager. N. Warren, cashier."

On December 27, the defendant drew and sent to Blodget, by mail, a check for $ 3000, payable to the order of Virginia E. Fisher and H. T. Blodget. On December 29, Blodget returned this check to the defendant in a letter having a similar heading to that above described, and requested a check payable to his own order. With the check returned, he sent an assignment of the policy and of all money payable under the same, from Mrs. Fisher to himself. The check returned to the defendant was altered in New York by the erasure of the names of Virginia E. Fisher and H. T. Blodget, and by the insertion of the name of H. T. Blodget alone, and was returned to Blodget on December 30, and was received by him on the following day.

Blodget testified that accompanying this altered check was a letter explaining the alteration; that he deposited this check for $ 3000 in the National Bank of Redemption on December 31, 1879, and on January 2, 1880, he paid to the plaintiff the sum of $ 2000 by his own personal check on said bank.

Fisher testified that the plaintiff took the assignment and advanced the money to the assignees solely for his (Fisher's) benefit, and that he was the beneficial party in interest; that, after this purchase from the assignees, it was necessary to perfect the title, and that the assignments put in evidence were executed accordingly; that Blodget said it could not be corrected otherwise; that then the papers were prepared and delivered to Blodget, who gave the receipt above described to the plaintiff; that they had no knowledge, before the collection of the money, of any purpose of Blodget to retain any part thereof.

The defendant produced as a witness one Sydney M. Hedges, a life-insurance actuary, who testified that he was familiar with this kind of policy; that he had examined this policy and was familiar with the provisions contained therein; that the value of said policy on December 26, 1879, under the laws of New York, did not exceed the sum of $ 2650.84, and of this sum $ 817 represented the interest of Virginia E. Fisher, and $ 1833.84 the interest of the plaintiff; but assuming that the parties had agreed on the cash surrender value of the policy as $ 3000, then the interest of Virginia E. Fisher would be $ 924.61, and the interest of the plaintiff $ 2075.39. To this testimony there was no objection, and the plaintiff offered no evidence to control these estimates.

The plaintiff's counsel stated that he would accept without question the amount intimated by the company ($ 3000), as the fair value of the policy on December 26, 1879.

There was no evidence tending to show that the receipt, dated December 26, 1879, signed by Blodget as manager, and delivered to the plaintiff, ever came to the knowledge of the officers of the company in New York. Nor was there any evidence that the plaintiff or Warren Fisher ever saw the correspondence between Blodget and the defendant. The letters from the defendant to Blodget relating to the surrender were called for, but not produced, at the trial.

It appeared in evidence that the only authority of Blodget to represent the defendant in Boston, except as contained in the letter of the defendant of December 23, was by a written contract, wherein his duties were defined and limited to those of a canvasser for life insurance, and his compensation fixed therefor, and it was specially set out in said contract as follows: "the authority of said agent shall extend no further than is above stated; he shall not make, alter or discharge any contract, nor waive forfeitures, or receive any moneys due or to become due to said society, except on receipt signed by some officer of said society or other authority, and shall receive no further remuneration for any services than as above stated."

The defendant asked the judge to instruct the jury as follows "1. The contract set out in the plaintiff's declaration payable by the defendant on January 30, 1886, 'at their office in the city of New York,' is a New York contract, and is to be interpreted by the law of the State of New York. 2. By the terms of said contract and the undisputed testimony of the expert Hedges, Virginia E. Fisher, wife of Warren Fisher, had, on December 26, 1879, a valuable interest in said policy, equivalent to $ 817 as a minimum valuation, or $ 924.61 as a maximum valuation. 3. The only interest in said policy which passed to the assignees of the estate of Warren Fisher in bankruptcy, and from them to the plaintiff, was the interest of Warren Fisher, as provided in said policy. 4. By the terms of said contract, and the uncontradicted testimony of the expert Hedges, the interest that the plaintiff had in this policy on December 26,...