Cammack v. Lewis
Court | United States Supreme Court |
Writing for the Court | MILLER |
Citation | 15 Wall. 643,21 L.Ed. 244,82 U.S. 643 |
Parties | CAMMACK v. LEWIS |
Decision Date | 01 December 1872 |
APPEAL from the Supreme Court for the District of Columbia; the case being thus:
One John E. Lewis, of Washington, D. C., being in bad health and owing by note $70, which he was not then able to
Page 644
pay, to a certain C. Cammack, Jr., tailor, for clothing, procured June 19th, 1868, at Cammack's suggestion, an insurance on his life, in the New Jersey Mutual Life Insurance Company, which had an agency in Washington, for $3000. The policy, No. 2885, was for seven years. Cammack paid the premium for the first year; and immediately after the policy was made out, Lewis gave to Cammack a note for $3000; there having been no consideration for the same; and assigned the policy to him. On the 9th of January following that is to say, seven months after the issuing of the policy—Lewis died, leaving a widow and two children; and Cammack having paid, of course, but the first year's premium, a sum of $25. After Lewis's death there was found among his papers a document, in Cammack's handwriting, thus
'WASHINGTON, D. C., September 15, 1868.
'This agreement witnesseth that I, the undersigned, for value received, do bind myself, and heirs, or legal representatives, to pay unto Maggie Lewis, wife of John E. Lewis, his heirs and assigns, the sum of one thousand dollars, in event of the said John E. Lewis's death; the said amount being first realized by me from an insurance on his (the said Lewis's) life, duly assigned to me, and held by me, otherwise this agreement to be held null and void. Number of the policy 2885, in the New Jersey Mutual Life Insurance Company.
'C. CAMMACK, JR.'
Among Lewis's particular friends was a Mr. W. E. Chandlee, of Washington, whom he was in the habit of consulting on business matters. About a week before his death, Lewis showed to him the draft of a will of which he desired Chandlee to be executor. And with a view of enabling Chandlee to properly administer things, he dictated to him a list of all the debts which he, as he said, expected would be brought in against his estate, and which he desired Chandlee as his executor to pay. Among them was the $70, due by the note to Cammack for clothing, and '$25 on account of life insurance.' Chandlee knew what this last item was for, without explanation; for Lewis had consulted him previously to his life's being insured, and told him that
Page 645
it was insured very soon after the policy issued. 'His statement to me,' said Chandlee, in giving an account of the matter, 'was that his life was insured by Mr. Cammack, in the New Jersey Mutual Life Insurance Company, for the sum of $3000, and that at any time that he was able to pay to the said Cammack the amount of premiums that the said Cammack should have paid on account of the policy, with interest on the same, and the amount he owed Cammack for clothing, that Cammack would restore the policy to him.'
Cammack was not present at any part of this account, and when it was told to him he denied the correctness of Lewis's understanding of the matter.
Lewis did not live to sign his will, and so Chandlee did not become his executor in form. Still, 'feeling,' as he said, 'disposed to render the same assistance to his widow as if the will had been signed, and Lewis having put into his possession for safe-keeping his private papers, among which was the memorandum set out above and signed by Cammack,' he went and saw Cammack, who had already made application to the insurance company for the amount of the insurance. Chandlee's account of the whole transaction was thus:
'Cammack told me that it might save time and trouble to have a written requisition from Mrs. Lewis, upon the company, to pay the money over to him (Cammack), as they might consider it their duty, otherwise, to pay it over to her, in which case it would occasion delay; but he didn't know that it would be necessary. I remarked to him that I didn't think it would make any difference as far as his claim was concerned, whether the money was paid to him directly, or to Mrs. Lewis; that I felt sure she would settle the matter, as called for in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Carpenter v. Knapp
...Franklin L. Ins. Co. v. Hazzard, 41 Ind. 116 (13 Am. Rep. 313); Stevens v. Warren, 101 Mass. 564; Cammack v. Lewis, 82 U.S. 15 Wall. 643, 21 L.Ed. 244; Cooper v. Shaeffer (Pa.) 9 Cent. Rep. 601; Corson's Appeal, 113 Pa. 438 (57 Am. Rep. 479); Lamont v. Hotel Men's Mut. Ben. Asso. (30 F. 817......
-
Dreyfus v. Barton, 14823
...not exempted." In re Shingluff, 106 F. 154; Gould v. New York Life Ins. Co., 132 F. 927; Warnock v. Davis, 104 U.S. 775; Cammack v. Lewis, 15 Wall. 643; Buelow, 98 F. 86; Josephon, 121 F. 142. Appellant attempts to draw some distinction between the wife and children of an insured and the ot......
-
Gordon v. Ware Nat. Bank, 1,995.
...and such assignments are void. Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Schaefer, 94 U.S. 457, 461, 24 L.Ed. 251; Cammack v. Lewis, 15 Wall. 643, 21 L.Ed. 244; Warnock v. Davis, 104 U.S. 775, 782, 26 L.Ed. 924. A creditor has an insurable interest in the life of his debtor, and a policy on the l......
-
Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Enoch
...proof. 3. The twelfth instruction should have been given. Contracts to insure the property of another are against public policy and void. 15 Wall. 643; 104 U.S. 775; 97 Va. 74; 92 Mich. 584; 76 Tex. 400; 9 F. 249; 46 Mich. 473; 104 Ga. 446. 4. It was error to refuse the eleventh instruction......
-
Carpenter v. Knapp
...Franklin L. Ins. Co. v. Hazzard, 41 Ind. 116 (13 Am. Rep. 313); Stevens v. Warren, 101 Mass. 564; Cammack v. Lewis, 82 U.S. 15 Wall. 643, 21 L.Ed. 244; Cooper v. Shaeffer (Pa.) 9 Cent. Rep. 601; Corson's Appeal, 113 Pa. 438 (57 Am. Rep. 479); Lamont v. Hotel Men's Mut. Ben. Asso. (30 F. 817......
-
Dreyfus v. Barton, 14823
...not exempted." In re Shingluff, 106 F. 154; Gould v. New York Life Ins. Co., 132 F. 927; Warnock v. Davis, 104 U.S. 775; Cammack v. Lewis, 15 Wall. 643; Buelow, 98 F. 86; Josephon, 121 F. 142. Appellant attempts to draw some distinction between the wife and children of an insured and the ot......
-
Gordon v. Ware Nat. Bank, 1,995.
...and such assignments are void. Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Schaefer, 94 U.S. 457, 461, 24 L.Ed. 251; Cammack v. Lewis, 15 Wall. 643, 21 L.Ed. 244; Warnock v. Davis, 104 U.S. 775, 782, 26 L.Ed. 924. A creditor has an insurable interest in the life of his debtor, and a policy on the l......
-
Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Enoch
...proof. 3. The twelfth instruction should have been given. Contracts to insure the property of another are against public policy and void. 15 Wall. 643; 104 U.S. 775; 97 Va. 74; 92 Mich. 584; 76 Tex. 400; 9 F. 249; 46 Mich. 473; 104 Ga. 446. 4. It was error to refuse the eleventh instruction......