Chance v. Simpkins

• Decision Date: 16 February 1917
• Docket Number: (No. 274.)
• Citation: 146 Ga. 519,91 S.E. 773
• Parties: CHANCE v. SIMPKINS et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

146 Ga. 519

91 S.E. 773

(146 Ga. 619)

CHANCE

v.SIMPKINS et al.

(No. 274.)

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Feb. 16, 1917.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court, Richmond County; H. C. Hammond, Judge.

Bill of interpleader by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company against Paul T. Chance, administrator, and Ellen Simpkins and another. There was a judgment for the latter, and the representative defendant brings error. Reversed.

Wm. H. Fleming and Paul T. Chance, both of Augusta, for plaintiff in error.

Geo. T. Jackson and C. Henry & R. S. Cohen, all of Augusta, for defendants in error.

GILBERT, J. The Metropolitan Life Insurance Company issued two policies of insurance on the life of Mary Collins. Frances Collins was named as beneficiary in one policy, and as beneficiary in the application for the other policy. The death of the beneficiary preceded that of the assured. There being conflicting claims for the payment of the amounts due under the policies, the insurance company, admitting liability, fifed a petition to require all the claimants to interplead, and for direction from the court as to whom the money should be paid. Paul T. Chance, administrator of Mary Collins, and Ellen Simpkins, filed their interventions; the former claiming on the ground that the beneficiary left the assured as her only heir. Ellen Simpkins claimed on the ground that the assured had appointed her as the "new beneficiary." She alleged that Frances Collins was the original beneficiary under both policies, and obtained judgment based onthese allegations. As the insurance company stood ready to pay either claim, according to the direction of the court, the contest was between the two interveners. The whole case was submitted to the judge, without the intervention of a jury, for his decision upon all matters of fact and of law; he being "clothed with all of the privileges, rights, powers, and authority that is within the province of a jury and judge in determining civil cases at law, " etc. The court rendered a judgment in favor of Ellen Simpkins. Chance, administrator, filed a motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and he excepted.

1. The defendant in error insists that the remedy of the plaintiff in error was by a direct bill of exceptions to the findings of the court, citing Lester v. Johnson, 64 Ga. 297, and Moreland v. Stephens, 64 Ga. 289. The difference between the cases cited and the instant case is that in the former the judgments of the court were rendered in vacation. in the case now under consideration, the judgment of the court was rendered in...