Boyden v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 19 May 1891
• Citation: 27 N.E. 669,153 Mass. 544
• Parties: BOYDEN v. MASSACHUSETTS MUT. LIFE INS. CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

153 Mass. 544

27 N.E. 669

BOYDEN v. MASSACHUSETTS MUT. LIFE INS. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Norfolk.

May 19, 1891

COUNSEL

Thomas E. Grover and Joseph J. Feeley, for plaintiff.

Gideon Wells, for defendant.

OPINION

KNOWLTON J.

We have no occasion to consider whether an action can be maintained in the name of the administratrix of an assured person upon a policy of life insurance payable to "the assured, his executors, administrators, or assigns," which has been assigned as collateral security to the insurance company which issued the policy; for the parties have agreed that, if the defendant's set-off is not allowed, judgment is to be entered for the plaintiff, and if it is allowed the judgment is to be for the defendant for the balance due. The plaintiff in the agreed statement of facts has admitted the validity of the assignments of the policy to the defendant, so far as they purport to secure the debts which they were intended to secure. The questions in the case relate to the defendant's attempt to set off against the plaintiff's claims the independent debts due it from the assured at the time of his death. These questions are two First, whether the money due under the policies belongs to the administratrix as assets of the estate which are subject to the debts of the assured; and, secondly, whether these are "mutual debts or demands between the plaintiff and defendant," within the meaning of Pub.St. c. 168, § 1 or are within the provision of section 12 of that chapter, which is as follows: "In an action by an executor or administrator, a demand against his testator or intestate, which at the time of his death belonged to the defendant, may be set off in the same manner as if the action had been brought by the deceased." The policy numbered 7,629 was made "for the express benefit of Lucinda A. Boyden, wife of said assured, and their children." This policy was assigned to the assured in due form by Lucinda A. Boyden, and by their children, who were then of full age. Lucinda A. Boyden died before the assured. If no assignment had been made, the policy, on her death, would have inured to the sole benefit of the children. A policy in this form, taken out by the assured on his life, and expressed to be for the benefit of his wife, is not only secured to her by our statute, but, in the absence of any statutory provision, it would be in the nature of an executory trust for her benefit, of which she could not be deprived without her consent. Pub.St. c. 119, § 167; St.1887, c. 214, § 73; Pingrey v. Insurance Co., 144 Mass. 374, 11 N.E. 562; Gould v. Emerson, 99 Mass. 154; Insurance Co. v. Weitz, Id. 157. But if the husband survives his wife, her interest in such a policy ceases with her death, and, in the absence of any express provision in the policy, it passes under our statute to their children, if there are any; if not, it belongs to the assured. Bailey v. Insurance Co., 114 Mass. 177; Burroughs v. Assurance Co., 97 Mass. 359; Swan v. Snow, 11 Allen, 224; Anderson's Estate, (Hays' Appeal,) 85 Pa.St. 202; Barry v. Assurance Soc., 59 N.Y. 587; Eadie v. Slimmon, 26 N.Y. 1.

In the present case there is an express provision which declares the policy to be for the benefit of the children as well as of the wife, and on her death, if there had been no assignment, they would have become the sole beneficiaries. By virtue of their assignment, their interest passed to the assured, and the argument of the plaintiff that the assignment from the wife to her husband was void becomes immaterial, on account of her death in his lifetime. The proceeds of this policy are assets of the estate, to be administered for the benefit of creditors and distributees. In the policy numbered 22,307, the following clause appears: "Said sum insured being for the express benefit of Lucinda A. Boyden, wife of said assured, in case of her decease prior to that of said assured for his own order." The expression "for his own order" is equivalent to "for himself" or "for his estate;" and by the terms of the policy, Lucinda A. Boyden having deceased before him, the administratrix is entitled to the proceeds, to be administered as assets of the estate.

The debts which the defendant seeks to set off and the claims which the plaintiff is trying to enforce are all in the same right. The plaintiff sues in her official capacity, and, in a broad sense, these are "mutual debts or demands between a plaintiff and defendant in an action." The statute in relation to set-off is a remedial one, and is given a liberal construction. This case comes within the reason of the rule prescribed by the statute,...