Barfoot v. Barfoot
Citation | 18 So.2d 465,245 Ala. 593 |
Decision Date | 01 June 1944 |
Docket Number | 7 Div. 790. |
Parties | BARFOOT et al. v. BARFOOT et al. |
Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Dortch Allen & Swann, of Gadsden, for appellants.
Hood Inzer, Martin & Suttle, of Gadsden, for appellees.
This appeal challenges the decree of the Probate Court of Etowah County touching the allowance to the widow under the statute in the assignment of dower and for distribution.
The case presents a single issue, viz: In a case where a husband carried insurance on his life with the wife named as beneficiary in the policies, and which policies reserved to the insured the right to change beneficiary at will, are the proceeds of the insurance policies collected by the widow after the death of the husband, chargeable to her as a part of her separate estate under the provisions of Sections 42 and 43, Tit. 34, Code 1940?
The statute in question, §§ 42 and 43, Tit. 34, Code 1940 excluding a wife either wholly or in part from her dower where she owns a statutory separate estate at the time of her husband's death, is in derogation of the common law, which highly favored the wife's dower right, classifying its protection with that of life and liberty. It must, for this reason, be strictly construed, and can have no operation except in the particular case designated, where the wife actually survives her husband, and an estimation is sought to be made of her perfect right of dower. It can have no application to the valuation of her inchoate right or dower. Gordon, Rankin & Co. v. Tweedy, 74 Ala. 232, 238, 49 Am.Rep. 813.
The interests of the named beneficiary in a policy of insurance providing for a change of beneficiary at the will of the insured is a mere expectancy. The right of a named beneficiary, no change having been made in fact or legal effect, becomes a fixed, vested and legal interest, at the death of the insured. Phillips v. Phillips, 240 Ala. 148, 198 So. 132; Carter v. First National Bank of Opp, 237 Ala. 47, 185 So. 361; American Life Ins. Co. v. Carlton, 236 Ala. 609, 184 So. 171; Boutwell v. Drinkard, 230 Ala. 212, 160 So. 349.
The agreement of counsel as to the insurance is in the following words:
Thus the question for decision is directly raised by the pleadings and the agreement of counsel. We have examined the records in Beck v. Karr, 209 Ala. 199, 95 So. 881; Moseley v. Neville, 221 Ala. 429, 129 So. 12, and in the records of those cases, it is not shown that the policy to the wife contained the clause reserving the right to change the beneficiary. In those cases the husband procured the policy on his life for his wife without reserving the right to change beneficiary before his death. Thus the question here presented was not decided in said cases.
In Drake v. Stone et al., 58 Ala. 133, Judge Stone recognizes the distinction here made in the observation: * * *"
Thus the Drake case touched a policy of insurance in which no clause for change of beneficiary was reserved to the husband taking the insurance.
Appellants rely upon Williams v. Williams, 68 Ala. 405, and Wadsworth v. Miller, 103 Ala. 130, 15 So. 520. The opinion in the Williams case discloses that the interest of the wife in the policy of insurance was unconditional, in that it was taken out in her name as sole beneficiary, the title vesting in her at the time the policy was issued and delivered. See Drake v. Stone, et al., 58 Ala. 133; Continental Ins. Co. v. Webb, Adm'r, 54 Ala 688. We have indicated that the right to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hiles v. United States
...Ala. 684, 81 So. 660; Thomas v. Blair et al., 208 Ala. 48, 93 So. 704; Hamm v. Butler, 215 Ala. 572, 112 So. 141; Barfoot et al. v. Barfoot et al., 245 Ala. 593, 18 So.2d 465; Lee v. Lee, 265 Ala. 226, 90 So.2d 775. 4 Bettis v. McNider, 137 Ala. 588, 34 So. 813; Francis v. Sandlin, 150 Ala.......
-
Thomas v. Thomas
...only upon the death of the insured.” (citing Flowers v. Flowers, 284 Ala. 230, 224 So.2d 590 (1969))); see also Barfoot v. Barfoot, 245 Ala. 593, 594, 18 So.2d 465, 465 (1944) (“The interests of the named beneficiary in a policy of insurance providing for a change of beneficiary at the will......
-
Jennings v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co.
... ... chattels. McDonald v. McDonald, 215 Ala. 179, 110 ... This ... rule was recently followed in Barfoot et al., v ... Barfoot, 245 Ala. 593, 18 So.2d 465, and the ... announcement made that ... [22 So.2d 322] ... interest of the named beneficiary ... ...
-
Flowers v. Flowers
...with his employer at the time of the execution of said agreement and property settlement. Such is the rule of our cases. Barfoot v. Barfoot, 245 Ala. 593, 18 So.2d 465; McDonald v. McDonald, 215 Ala. 179, 110 So. 291; Phillips v. Phillips, 240 Ala. 148, 198 So. 132; Carter v. First Nat. Ban......