Biggert v. Straub

• Decision Date: 16 October 1906
• Citation: 78 N.E. 770,193 Mass. 77
• Parties: BIGGERT v. STRAUB et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

193 Mass. 77

78 N.E. 770

BIGGERT v. STRAUB et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

October 16, 1906

COUNSEL

Arthur T. Johnson and Bullock & Thayer, for plaintiff.

Chas T. Tatman, for defendants.

OPINION

KNOWLTON C.J.

This is a suit in equity in the nature of an equitable trustee process, brought under Rev. Laws, c. 159, 3, cl. 7, to reach and apply in payment of a debt due, the plaintiff's property in the hands of the defendant life insurance company, belonging to the debtor, Charles L. Straub. This defendant and his wife, Bertha G. Straub, the other defendant who seems to have an interest in the property, are not residents of this commonwealth and the only service made upon either of them was by publication. They have filed motions to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction. The presiding justice overruled these motions and then reported for consideration by this court, the questions arising upon them.

The first question is whether a liability of a Massachusetts corporation upon a policy of life insurance held by a citizen and resident of another state, is property within this commonwealth, such as to give jurisdiction to the court here to enter a decree in the nature of a judgment in rem against it. This question is precisely the same, in its legal aspect as the question whether such a liability, in a form that can be reached by trustee process in an action at law, gives jurisdiction for an action of the latter kind. This question has long been treated in this commonwealth as requiring an affirmative answer. Ocean Insurance Co. v. Portsmouth Marine Ry. Co., 3 Metc. 420; Whipple v. Robbins, 97 Mass. 107, 93 Am. Dec. 64; American Bank v. Rollins, 99 Mass. 313; National Bank of Commerce v. Huntington, 129 Mass. 444; Garity v. Gigie, 130 Mass. 184. In view of conflicting cases in different jurisdictions, it was considered at some length and decided in the affirmative in Rothschild v. Knight, 176 Mass. 48, 57 N.E. 337, and it was settled by decisions in the Supreme Court of the United States, which is the final arbiter in all controversies as to the validity and effect of judgments of one state in the courts of another state. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. v. Sturm, 174 U.S. 710-716, 19 S.Ct. 797, 43 L.Ed. 1144; King v. Cross, 175 U.S. 396-399, 20 S.Ct. 131, 44 L.Ed. 211; Rothschild v. Knight, 184 U.S. 334, 22 S.Ct. 391, 46 L.Ed. 573; Blackstone v. Miller. 188 U.S. 189, 205, 206, 23 S.Ct. 277, 47 L.Ed. 439. The defendants' objection to the jurisdiction on this ground is not sustained.

The only other question is whether the property is of such a nature as to come within the statute. The State Mutual Life Insurance Company issued a policy of insurance on the life of the defendant, Charles L. Straub, in the sum of $10,000, for the term of 32 years from May 7, 1895 promising to pay this amount to him or his assigns on May 7, 1927, or in the event of his death prior to said date, to pay it to his wife, the defendant Bertha G. Straub. It appears that this policy now...