Chrysler Corp. v. Blozic

Decision Date04 June 1934
Docket NumberNo. 11.,11.
Citation255 N.W. 399,267 Mich. 479
PartiesCHRYSLER CORPORATION v. BLOZIC et al.
CourtMichigan Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County, in Chancery; Herman Dehnke, Judge.

Bill of interpleader by the Chrysler Corporation against Frank Blozic and the Board of Auditors of Wayne County. From a decree in favor of the Board of Auditors, Frank Blozic appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

Levin, Levin & Dill, of Detroit (Morris Garvett, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellant Frank Blozic.

Oscar A. Kaufman, Corp. Counsel, of Detroit, for appellee Board of Auditors of Wayne County.

WIEST, Justice.

This is a bill of interpleader. Plaintiff company had its employees insured under a group policy, and issued a certificate to Steve Blozic, one of its employees, showing that his life was insured in the sum of $3,000, with full benefit in case of total disability, and designating Frank Blozic as beneficiary in case of death. The insured had tuberculosis and was cared for at a hospital at the expense of Wayne county, from August 2, 1929, to May 10, 1931, pursuant to county statutory duty. See Comp. Laws 1929, § 6641.

In March, 1931, the insured executed the following instrument:

‘Be it known that I, Steve Stuben (Steve Blozic) of the City of Detroit, County of Wayne, State of Michigan, do hereby and by these presents make, constitute and appoint John C. Cowan, William Gutman and William H. Green, the Wayne County Board of Auditors, or any one of them, my true and lawful attorney-in-fact with full authority to receive and collect any money or monies, sums or amounts, due me or to become due under a certain policy of insurance in which I am the insured and the Chrysler Industrial Ass'n, Employes Mutual Benefit Division, Aetna Life Insurance Co. is the insurer, being policy No. 125-140, and my said attorneys, or any one of them, shall have authority to receive checks in their own name, or to endorse checks received in my name and apply all sums received in such proportions as to them, or any one of them, may seem proper on my expense for hospitalization and medical care, or either, as I may owe to the County of Wayne or any of its agencies.

‘In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 30 day of Mch., 1931, at Detroit, Wayne County, State of Michigan.

[Sgd.] Steve Stuben

[Sgd.] Steve Blozic.’

This was acknowledged before a notary public on the same day.

Mr. Blozic died May 10, 1931. At that time nothing had been paid on the insurance. On May 23, 1931, plaintiff corporation received the insurance and, upon claims being made by Frank Blozic, the named beneficiary, and the board of auditors of Wayne county, under the mentioned instrument, filed the bill herein to have the claimants interplead and the court adjudicate between them. The court decreed payment of the insurance money into court by plaintiff and distribution thereof by payment of $1,898 to the board of auditors, $9 costs to plaintiff, $200 to its attorneys, and the balance to be held by the clerk subject to the lien of the attorneys for Frank Blozic, and the remainder subject to the order of the court in another case against Frank Blozic.

The question in the case is whether the instrument, either as a power of attorney or as an assignment of benefits, survived the decease of the insured.

By reason of tuberculosis, the insured suffered total disability, and was entitled to claim and receive benefits under the policy, and this was true at the time he executed the mentioned instrument. Did the instrument constitute a power coupled with an interest?

‘A ‘power is coupled with an interest’ when the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Vanderwall v. Midkiff, Docket No. 89918
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • April 7, 1988
    ...Stephenson v. Golden, 279 Mich. 710, 735-737, 276 N.W. 849 (1937); 3 Am Jur 2d, Agency, Sec. 88, p 599.5 Chrysler Corp. v. Blozic, 267 Mich. 479, 482-483, 255 N.W. 399 (1934).6 See Harvey v. Security Services, 148 Mich.App. 260, 270, 384 N.W.2d 414 (1986), lv. den. 425 Mich. 863 (1986).7 Ho......
  • Kimmel v. Hammond
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • June 12, 1958
    ...to, nor have we been able to find, a similar Michigan case. Appellant cites only 2 Michigan cases, namely, Chrysler Corporation v. Blozic, 267 Mich. 479, 255 N.W. 399, and Ecclestone v. Indialantic, Inc., 319 Mich. 248, 29 N.W.2d In the Chrysler Corporation v. Blozic case, grantor, in retur......
  • In re Estate of Capuzzi
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • July 2, 2004
    ...the principal revokes the authority of the agent, unless the agency is coupled with an interest. See, e.g., Chrysler Corp. v. Blozic, 267 Mich. 479, 481-482, 255 N.W. 399 (1934); Weaver v. Richards, 144 Mich. 395, 413, 108 N.W. 382 1906). Any act done by the agent after the principal dies c......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT