Brown v. Mansus

• Decision Date: 30 July 1886
• Citation: 5 A. 768,64 N.H. 39
• Parties: BROWN, Adm'r, and others v. MANSUS.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

5 A. 768

64 N.H. 39

BROWN, Adm'r, and others

v. MANSUS.¹

Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

July 30, 1886.

Reserved case from Rockingham county.

Bill in equity to recover possession of a certificate of life insurance. The plaintiffs are the administrator, widow, and two minor children of C. C. Green, deceased. In July, 1884, Green and the defendant, a woman, went to Boston, and he effected an insurance upon his life for $1,000 by becoming a member of a relief association. He received a certificate of membership which he then delivered to the defendant, and which remained in her possession until after this suit was brought. The insurance was effected in pursuance of an understanding between Green and the defendant to make provision for the support of their illegitimate child. They both understood that the insurance would be available for that purpose, and he delivered the certificate to her to enable her to receive the insurance when it might become payable. By the certificate the benefit is made payable to Green's heirs, administrators, or executors, and shall not be transferred or assigned without the consent of the association. All the assessments were paid by Green. When the certificate was issued he had a wife and two children, with whom he lived until his death, in 1885. Since the filing of this bill the association, on the surrender of the certificate, deposited the amount of insurance with the clerk of the court, to be paid to the party entitled to receive it.

Wiggin & Fuller, for plaintiffs.

Calvin Page, for defendant.

BINGHAM, J. The certificate is a chose in action assignable by parol. The fact that it provides that it may be assigned with the consent of the association, and an action maintained thereon by the assignee, is simply an adoption of the common law. Boyd v. Webster, 58 N. H. 336; 1 Bouv. Law Dict. 265, § 2; Foss v. Bank, 111 Mass. 285, 287. At common law, also, the assignee becomes the equitable owner, and, without the consent of the debtor to the assignment of a chose in action, may maintain a suit in the name of the assignor, or his legal representative, and, after notice to him of the assignment, the equitable interest of the assignee will be protected in courts of law against all interference of the original parties. Duncklee v. Steam Mill Co., 23 N. H. 245, 250; Thompson v. Emery, 27 N. H. 269, 272; Cameron v. Little, 13 N. H. 23, 25; Gordon v. Drury, 20 N. H. 353. The assignment need not be in writing or in any particular form of words, if a consideration is proved, and the meaning of the parties appears. The assignment was not void on account of its immorality. It was not immoral for the mother to provide for the maintenance of the child, whatever may have been her previous conduct, and its support was a good consideration for the assignment of the certificate. Parker v. Way,...