Bennett v. Featherstone

• Citation: 71 S.W. 589
• Parties: BENNETT v. FEATHERSTONE et al.
• Decision Date: 20 December 1902
• Court: Supreme Court of Tennessee

Page 589

71 S.W. 589

BENNETT v. FEATHERSTONE et al.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

December 20, 1902.

Appeal from chancery court, Franklin county; T. M. McConnell, Chancellor.

Action by W. S. Bennett against Mary Featherstone and others. From a judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Frank L. Lynch, and Lynch & Lynch, for appellant. Albert D. Marks, for Continental Ins. Co. J. E. Willis, for Mrs. Mary Featherstone.

WILKES, J.

This cause involves the right to the proceeds of a fire insurance policy. Defendants own a life estate in the premises, which were burned, and complainant owns the remainder interest. The bill was filed by the remainderman against the life tenant and insurance company, and asks that the proceeds of insurance upon the house burned be applied to replacing the building, or loaned out until the death of the life tenant, so as to preserve the remainder to him, and to enable the life tenant to receive the interest during her life. There was a demurrer to the bill, which set up, in substance, that, according to the allegations made, the contract of insurance was only a personal contract with the life tenant for her own indemnity, and it was not charged that complainant, as remainderman, was a party to the contract, or interested therein, and there was no allegation that there was any agreement that the policy should inure to the benefit of the remainderman. Furthermore, that the bill showed a separate and distinct insurable interest in both the life tenant and remainderman, and failed to allege that the policy was intended to protect the interest of both the life tenant and remainderman. The life tenant and insurance company joined in this demurrer. On hearing it was sustained, and the bill was dismissed, and there was an appeal by complainant. On hearing in that court the court of chancery appeals affirmed the decree of the chancellor, and complainant has appealed to this court, and assigned errors.

We are of opinion complainant fails to state such facts as would give him any interest in the proceeds of the policy, or any right to control the same. There is no allegation that the policy was taken out to cover the remainder interest as well as the life estate, and none that there was any agreement or understanding that the remainderman should be protected. The questions presented are whether the life tenant is under any legal obligation to insure the interest of the remainderman, and whether, if the life tenant takes out insurance without in terms expressly limiting it to his interest, he can claim such insurance to the exclusion of the remainderman. We are cited to quite a number of cases in support of complainant's contention that he has an interest in the proceeds of insurance in similar cases. The first is the case of Hudnell v. Burkle, 3 Tenn. Cas. 616. In that case Burkle took out insurance upon his house, the policy being issued to him, loss payable to himself, his executors or administrators. He devised this real estate to his four children. His widow dissented from his will, and had dower assigned, which embraced the house covered by the insurance. The house was subsequently destroyed by fire. The proceeds of the policy were paid to the executors. A contest arose as to who was entitled to them, the creditors, devisees, or widow. The court held that, the loss having occurred after the death of the owner, his executors should receive the proceeds of the policy as realty for the...