Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Ryan
| Decision Date | 13 April 1880 |
| Citation | 8 Mo.App. 535 |
| Parties | CONNECTICUT MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. THOS. RYAN, Respondent, and SALLIE GILDAY, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
1. A wife may transfer her interest in a policy of insurance upon her husband's life by assignment.
2. That such an assignment is procured by the persuasion and influence of the husband does not avoid it, in the absence of fraud.
3. A wife has no title to the proceeds of an insurance policy upon her husband's life unless it be so expressed in the policy, though the policy recites that the premiums were paid by her, when in fact they were all paid by her husband or his creditors.
APPEAL from the St. Louis Circuit Court.
Affirmed.
BROADHEAD, SLAYBACK & HAEUSSLER, for the appellant: The wife cannot assign the policy during her husband's life.-- Eadie v. Slimmon, 26 N. Y. 9; Barry v. Insurance Co., 59 N. Y. 587; Barry v. Brune, 71 N. Y. 267; Moehring v. Mitchell, 1 Barb. Ch. 272; 34 Conn. 305; Wood v. Simmons, 20 Mo. 363; Croft v. Bolton, 31 Mo. 355. It is not necessary to show actual fraud, to render void an assignment made by the wife under the undue influence of the husband.-- Whelan v. Whelan, 3 Cow. 537; Turner v. Turner, 44 Mo. 537. Ryan, having wrongfully obtained an apparent title and possession of the original policy, stood in the position of Mrs. Gilday's agent or trustee.--71 N. Y. 267; Story on Ag., sects. 229, 231; Salisbury v. McCoom, 3 Conn. 390; 2 Story's Eq. Pl., sects. 395, 513, 1258, 1259.
E. T. FARISH, for the respondent, cited: Insurance Co. v. Brant, 47 Mo. 424; Baker v. Young, 47 Mo. 453.
This is a bill of interpleader, filed by the plaintiff that the respondent and the appellant might, between them, litigate the right to $4,728, the proceeds of a policy of insurance upon the life of John Gilday, the husband of the appellant. The respondent, a creditor of Gilday in the latter's lifetime, claimed the policy by virtue of a written assignment of the same, made to the respondent by John Gilday and the appellant on the twenty-third day of May, 1874. The allegations of the appellant are to the effect that the respondent wrongfully and fraudulently prevailed upon her husband to so exercise his marital influence over the appellant as to make her transfer the policy to the respondent without consideration, and that she made the transfer in trust, expecting that the respondent would protect her interests.
The money having been paid into court and the plaintiff discharged, the court below, upon the testimony, found the issue for the respondent, and there was judgment accordingly.
The appellant assumes that the policy, before the assignment, belonged to her; but the wording of the policy does not sustain this position, nor do the facts. The policy is nowhere expressed to be for her benefit, or to have been taken out for her, or on her account.
The company “do assure the life of John Gilday * * * in the sum of $5,000, payable on the eighteenth day of March, 1886, when the said John Gilday shall have attained the age of fifty-five years, or in ninety days after due notice and proof of his death, should he die before attaining to that age.” In no event is the policy made payable, by any possible construction, to the appellant; and in case of his death--the contingency which happened, and on which the bill was filed--it is payable, by express words, to his “executors, administrators, or assigns.” In the first part, in stating the consideration, the $354.15 premium is said to have been paid by the appellant; but this is merely recital, and the question here is as to the essential parts. In fact, it appears that the appellant paid no premium, these being paid either by her husband or the respondent.
The appellant kept the policy, and, it appears, had it in her exclusive possession up to the time of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mut. Life Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Buford
...169 Mo. 301, 69 S.W. 370, 58 L. R. A. 436, 92 Am. St. Rep. 641, overruling Gambs v. Covenant Mut. L. Ins. Co., 50 Mo. 44; Conn. Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Ryan, 8 Mo. App. 535; Warner v. M. W. of A. (1903) 67 Neb. 233, 93 N.W. 397, 61 L. R. A. 603, 108 Am. St. Rep. 634, 2 Ann. Cas. 660; Fisher v. ......
-
Box v. Lanier
... ... , over the proceeds of an insurance policy upon the life of the husband. These proceeds were paid over to the ... 309; Pilcher v. N. Y. Life Ins. Co., 33 La. Ann. 322; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Flack, 3 ... Colburn, 99 Mass. 342; Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Ryan, 8 Mo. App. 535; Edington v. Ætna ... ...
-
Adler v. Stoffel (In re Breitung's Estate)
...St. 156, 5 N. E. Rep. 417; Robinson v. Duvall, 79 Ky. 83; Vollman's Appeal, 92 Pa. St. 50; Gosling v. Caldwell, 1 Lea, 454;Insurance Co. v. Ryan, 8 Mo. App. 535;Crittenden v. Insurance Co., 41 Mich. 442, 2 N. W. Rep. 657;Mullins v. Thompson, 51 Tex. 7;Bank v. Whittle, 63 N. H. 587, 3 Atl. R......
-
Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Ryan
...8 Mo.App. 535 CONNECTICUT MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. THOS. RYAN, Respondent, and SALLIE GILDAY, Appellant. Court of Appeals of Missouri, St. Louis.April 13, 1. A wife may transfer her interest in a policy of insurance upon her husband's life by assignment. 2. That such an assignment i......