Brogi v. Brogi
| Decision Date | 21 May 1912 |
| Citation | 211 Mass. 512,98 N.E. 573 |
| Parties | BROGI v. BROGI. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Arthur Berenson and Bernard Berenson, both of Boston, for plaintiff.
F. J Daggett and John S. Slater, both of Boston, for defendant.
The policies being based upon the interest of the assured in his own life were supported by an insurable interest, and so far as respects this matter were valid.
The beneficiary named was 'Mary E. Brogi, wife' of the assured. It is argued by the plaintiff that the defendant was made a beneficiary in her capacity as a wife and not as an individual; that she was not the lawful wife of the assured and hence was not a legal beneficiary. But this position is untenable. The defendant had been through two marriage ceremonies with Brogi in the state of New York which, even if void here by reason of our statutes (R. L. c. 152, § 21; chapter 151, § 10), were nevertheless valid in that state and hence valid everywhere except in this commonwealth. And while we may not recognize the validity of the marriage when she is here seeking the rights of a wife under our laws, we must not close our eyes to the fact that there has been a marriage ceremony between her and Brogi; that at the end of that ceremony they stood side by side as lawfully wedded husband and wife under the laws of the state of New York and of every other state except Massachusetts. See Whippen v Whippen, 171 Mass. 560, 51 N.E. 174. At the time the policies were procured the parties were living together as husband and wife in reliance upon the marriage ceremonies. In the interpretation of the language of the policy we are not to determine whether in this state the beneficiary was the legal wife of the assured, but whether by the term 'wife' he meant her; and there can be no doubt that he did. She was the person named as the beneficiary whatever may have been her relation to him.
It is next argued that the defendant not being recognized as the legal wife of the beneficiary had no beneficial interest in the life of the assured, and that consequently she was not a lawful beneficiary. It may well be doubted whether under the peculiar relation she sustained to her reputed husband she had not an insurable interest in his life. But we have not found it necessary to consider that question.
Whether an assignee or a beneficiary must have an insurable interest in the life insured is a question upon which there is an irreconcilable conflict among the authorities. See among other cases, Warnock v. Davis, 104 U.S. 775, 26 L.Ed. 924; Gilbert v. Moose, 104 Pa. 74, 49 Am. Rep. 570; Russell v. Grisby, 168 F. 577, 94 C. C. A. 61; Gordon v. Ware, 132 F. 444, 65 C. C. A. 580, 67 L. R. A. 550; Clark v. Allen, 11 R.I. 439, 23 Am. Rep. 496; Grigsby v. Russell, 222 U.S. 149, 32 S.Ct. 58, 56 L.Ed. 133, and the cases therein respectively cited. For a collection of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial