Barrett v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 27 October 1896 |
| Citation | 68 N.W. 906,99 Iowa 637 |
| Parties | JAMES E. BARRETT, Appellant, v. THE NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, FLORENCE A. COWLES, FRANCIS S. EARL, JANE E. SEARLE, CHARLES E. BARRETT AND WILLIAM BARRETT, Interveners, Appellees |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Black Hawk District Court.--HON. J. L. HUSTED, Judge.
THIS is a contest between plaintiff and the interveners over the avails of a certain life insurance policy. The interveners were successful in the lower court, and the plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Mullan & Pickett for appellant.
Boies Couch & Boies for appellees.
The plaintiff claims to be entitled to the money due from the insurance company upon a policy issued by it upon the life of one Charles E. Barrett, under and by virtue of the following assignment: The interveners say that said assignment was issued for the purpose of indemnifying the assignee therein named for the payment of the sum of one dollar, and any premiums which might thereafter mature on said policy, and to secure him for the payment of such sums of money as he might advance to continue the policy in force and they allege that plaintiff paid as premiums on the policy, during the life of the assured, the sum of one hundred and eighty-three dollars and thirteen cents. They claim five-sixths of all but this amount of the proceeds of the policy, as the children and heirs at law of the assured. The answer of the plaintiff to the petition of intervention, in so far as it is material to be stated, is practically a denial of the legal effect claimed by interveners of the instrument of assignment executed to plaintiff. To this answer a demurrer was interposed by the interveners, which was by the court sustained, and plaintiff excepted. Thereupon plaintiff filed an amended and substituted cross-bill in equity, in which he claimed that the assignment to him of the policy in suit was intended by the parties thereto to be absolute, in consideration of a conveyance of land made by plaintiff to the assured in the year 1866, and he asked that, in the event the court found the assignment to be qualified on its face, it be reformed to express the true agreement of the parties. The interveners demurred to this amended and substituted cross-bill, and their demurrer was sustained, to which plaintiff excepted. After the ruling upon the demurrer, the plaintiff filed a second amended and substituted cross-bill in equity, which substantially re-pleads the matters ruled upon in the prior pleadings. The interveners moved to strike the last paper from the files, upon the ground that it was a substantial re-pleading of matters which had already been passed upon. This motion was submitted and sustained, and plaintiff excepted, and elected to stand upon his second amended and substituted cross-bill, and refused to plead further. The court thereupon rendered judgment decreeing that interveners and plaintiff, after deducting the one hundred and eighty-three dollars and thirteen cents, with interest, take the proceeds of the policy share and share alike. To this judgment and decree plaintiff excepted. The assignments of error relate to the rulings of the court upon the demurrer interposed by interveners. There is no assignment of error upon the ruling on the motion to strike the second amended and substituted cross-bill. Such is the condition of the record presented for our consideration.
It will be noticed that appellant assigns no error in the ruling on the motion to strike, consequently we have no occasion to consider it. He does complain of the court's ruling on the demurrer to the amended and substituted cross-bill in equity, but we cannot...
To continue reading
Request your trial