Bartlett v. Goodrich
| Decision Date | 05 October 1897 |
| Citation | 47 N.E. 794,153 N.Y. 421 |
| Parties | BARTLETT v. GOODRICH. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from supreme court, general term, First department.
Action by Maria H. N. Bartlett, as executrix of E. B. Bartlett, deceased, against William W. Goodrich, as assignee of the surviving partners of E. B. Bartlett & Co., and of Henry C. Nitchie and Albert C. Woodruff, to determine whether plaintiff or defendant is entitled to the proceeds of certain policies on the life of deceased. A judgment in favor of plaintiff for $65,000 was affirmed by the general term (36 N. Y. Supp. 770), and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
John A. Deady and William G. Choate, for appellant.
Frederic A. Wood and George W. Wingate, for respondent.
The plaintiff's husband and testator died on the 24th of May, 1894. At the time of his death he was a member of a mercantile firm, largely indebted, and on the 7th of June following his death the two surviving partners, Woodruff and Nitchie, made a general assignment for the benefit of creditors as such survivors, and individually, to the defendant. The plaintiff collected about $80,000 due upon policies of insurance upon her husband's life, which sum was paid to her by the several insurance companies as executrix. The defendant, Goodrich, was counsel for her husband in his lifetime, and stood in that relation to her, and was also assignee under the general assignment. The plaintiff, upon his advice, paid over to him the proceeds of the insurance, upon the theory that the money belonged to the trustee under the assignment, and not to the executrix under the will. It is conceded that the fund came to the hands of the assignee upon the faith of his advice, honestly given, that the same belonged to the creditors of the firm, and not to the creditors of the deceased. This is now the only question in the case, and since the widow paid over the money to the assignee voluntarily, upon his advice, it is agreed on all sides that no advantage is to be taken of that fact or any technical point raised on that ground. All objections to the right of recovery upon the merits are waived if in fact or in law the widow had the right originally to retain the money as the personal representative of her deceased husband. The learned trial judge held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover, and the general term has affirmed the judgment. There were no findings made as the result of the trial, but simply a brief statement of the ground of the decision. In this condition of the record, we must presume that all facts warranted by the evidence, and necessary to support the judgment, have been found. Amherst College v. Ritch, 151 N. Y. 282, 45 N. E. 876. The appeal therefore cannot prevail unless it appears, as matter of law, that the learned trial judge was not warranted, upon any fair view of the evidence, in finding, as he did, that the deceased was, at the time of his death, the equitable owner of the policies.
We are of the opinion, after a careful examination of the case, that the title to the policies, and to the moneys due thereon, presented a question of fact, and that the determination of that question in favor of the plaintiff by the trial court is conclusive upon this appeal. Having arrived at that result, we do not consider it important to refer to the evidence with much detail, since a statement of the most prominent features of the case will sufficiently indicate the nature of the question passed upon in the courts below, and disclose the reasons for our decision.
1. It is undisputed that the policies were issued to the deceased in his own name, and made payable to him, his executors, administrators, and assigns, and that, up to the time of the assignment hereinafter referred to, he had the apparent legal title. It is quite true that the premiums were paid from the funds of the firm, but the deceased had furnished all the capital for the business, and there was always a large balance due to him upon the books of the firm. He had the right to draw against that balance, and it is quite immaterial whether he received a portion of it from the firm in cash, or applied it to the payment of premiums upon the policies. The result was that, in equity, he paid the premiums himself. Nor is it important now that the premiums were not charged to the deceased upon the firm books, but credited in a special...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Emma Fayerweather v. Thomas Ritch No 157 John Reynolds v. Thomas Ritch No 158
...accord with the ordinary ruling as to the effect of a judgment without findings. So it has frequently decided. In Bartlett v. Goodrich, 153 N. Y. 421, 424, 47 N. E. 794, 795, it 'The learned trial judge held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover, and the general term has affirmed the j......
-
Howell v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. of Boston
...must be given to the subject-matter and surrounding circumstances. Griswold v. Sawyer, 125 N.Y. 411, 26 N.E. 464;Bartlett v. Goodrich, 153 N.Y. 421, 47 N.E. 794. There can be no doubt that the insured was actuated by the purpose and intended to make provision for her husband, if he survived......
-
Spicer v. New York Life Ins. Co.
... ... Hattiesburg Bank, 98 So. 541; ... Phoenix Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Apper, 75 Conn. 295; ... Allen v. Allen, 88 N.J.Eq. 575; Bartlett v ... Goodrich, 153 N.Y. 421; 37 C. J. 565, sec. 322. (b) The ... fact that plaintiffs are legatees or distributees under will ... of Charles ... ...
-
Spicer v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co.
...Magee v. Hattiesburg Bank, 98 So. 541; Phoenix Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Apper, 75 Conn. 295; Allen v. Allen, 88 N.J. Eq. 575; Bartlett v. Goodrich, 153 N.Y. 421; 37 C.J. 565, sec. 322. (b) The fact that plaintiffs are legatees or distributees under will of Charles Spicer does not substitute ......