Christman v. Christman

• Citation: 163 Wis. 433,157 N.W. 1099
• Parties: CHRISTMAN v. CHRISTMAN ET AL.
• Decision Date: 23 May 1916
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin

163 Wis. 433

157 N.W. 1099

CHRISTMAN

v.CHRISTMAN ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

May 23, 1916.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Rock County; George Grimm, Judge.

Action by Emily M. Christman against Harrison E. Christman, as executor of Farmer W. Christman, and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Action to determine who is entitled to the proceeds of an insurance policy of $2,000 on the life of Farmer W. Christman, deceased. On or about December 28, 1901, the deceased insured his life in the New York Life Insurance Company, making the policy payable to Emily M. Christman, his wife. The policy contained the following clause:

“The insured, having reserved the right, may change the beneficiary or beneficiaries at any time during the continuance of this policy by written notice to the company, at the home office, provided this policy is not then assigned.”

No change of beneficiary was ever made on the policy. On or about the 25th of January, 1913, Emily M. Christman instituted divorce proceedings against her husband, and was granted a decree on March 12, 1913. Farmer W. Christman died on the 14th of November, 1913, leaving a will, dated the same day, in which he bequeathed the proceeds of the policy to Harmon A. Christman, Vivian Sweet, Blanche Sweet, and Harrison E. Christman. The will was admitted to probate December 6, 1913, and Harrison E. Christman qualified as executor thereof. Proofs of the death of Farmer W. Christman were approved by the New York Life Insuance Company on April 11, 1914, and the company was then notified by Harrison E. Christman, as executor, and by his attorney not to pay the proceeds of the policy to the plaintiff, Emily M. Christman. After the commencement of this action the New York Life Insurance Company paid the amount of the policy into court, and was discharged from liability thereon. Upon these facts the court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff, and the defendants appealed.Charles E. Pierce, of Janesville, for appellants.

Thomas S. Nolan, of Janesville, for respondent.

VINJE, J. (after stating the facts as above).

[1] Under the provisions of section 2347, Stats. 1915, and the construction given it on the rehearing in National Life Ins. Co. v. Brautigam, 157 N. W. 782, when the insured made his wife the beneficiary, she took a vested interest in the policy, subject to be divested in the manner reserved in the policy contract, and not otherwise. The only method of change reserved was by written notice to the company...