Edwards v. New York Life Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 02 April 1938 |
| Parties | EDWARDS v. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. et al. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Appeal from Chancery Court, Shelby County; L. D. Bejach, Chancellor.
Suit by Paul C. Edwards against the New York Life Insurance Company and another, requiring the named defendant to issue a duplicate life policy with beneficiary changed as requested by plaintiff. To review a decree of the Court of Appeals which affirmed a decree for the complainant, the named defendant brings certiorari.
Reversed and suit dismissed.
H. W Laughlin, Jr., and King & King, all of Memphis, for appellant.
Winchester & Bearman, of Memphis, for appellee.
From a decree of the chancellor in favor of complainant, defendant New York Life Insurance Company appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decree of the chancellor and we granted defendant's petition for certiorari.
In 1923 complainant Edwards took out a policy of life insurance in the sum of $5,000 of which his mother, Mrs. May Edwards, was the beneficiary. Having married, he procured a change of beneficiary on November 10, 1934, agreeable to the terms of the policy, and his wife Mrs. Julia V. Edwards, was made the beneficiary.
On April 13, 1935, while complainant was out of the city of Memphis, where they lived, his wife left him, without any notice, and went to the state of Michigan. The record discloses that she took all the effects of the complainant that she could conveniently carry, among other things, this insurance policy. It appears that his wife has permanently parted from the complainant and that he has demanded of her the return of the policy of insurance. She has declined to return the policy, claiming some interest in it by assignment or otherwise, and she has advised defendant insurance company accordingly.
Complainant testified that he had himself paid all premiums on the policy, that under the terms of the contract he was entitled to change the beneficiary as often as he desired, that he had made proper application to defendant insurance company to have the beneficiary changed and the policy again made payable to his mother, Mrs. May Edwards. Defendant insurance company refuses to make the change of beneficiary, or to issue a duplicate policy with the beneficiary changed until the original policy is returned to it for proper indorsement. The bill prayed that the wife, Mrs. Julia V. Edwards, now a resident of Michigan, be made a party to the cause by publication; that the defendant insurance company be required to issue a duplicate policy with the beneficiary changed as requested; and that the wife, Mrs. Julia V. Edwards, be required "to surrender the policy she now has in her possession and turn it over to the complainant so that he may change the name of the beneficiary from that of Mrs. Julia V Edwards to May Edwards, as well as to retain the possession of said policy, or in lieu thereof for the court to cancel and make void the policy now held by the said defendant, Mrs Julia V. Edwards, so that a duplicate may be issued by the co-defendant New York Life Insurance Company." Publication was duly made for Mrs. Julia V. Edwards but she filed no answer and did not make any appearance otherwise in the case.
The policy of insurance contains the following provisions:
It will be observed that under the terms of the policy a change of beneficiary can be made if the policy "is not then assigned." While the record before us indicates that the complainant has not made any written assignment of his rights or interest in this policy of insurance, it appears that his wife is claiming some sort of fixed or vested interest therein and she is in possession of the policy. Defendant insurance company is no doubt doing business and amenable to process in every state of the Union. Defendant insurance company insists that a decree in this case, to which Mrs. Julia V. Edwards is not a party, to the effect that she had no rights in the policy, would be no protection to it in another jurisdiction in which she might thereafter assert such rights. That for this reason it should not be required to issue the complainant a duplicate policy with the beneficiary changed, the original policy being outstanding and in the hands of Mrs. Julia V. Edwards in another state. We think this contention of the company is well made.
The complainant relies on Perry v. Young, 133 Tenn. 522 182 S.W. 577, L. R. A.1917B, 385. That decision was by a divided court, two of the five judges dissenting, and has been subjected to some criticism. See note following the report of that decision in L.R.A.1917B, 385. Perry v. Young was a suit to reform an insurance policy. The court had before it the insurance company, the insured, all the beneficiaries save one, and had before it the policy of insurance itself. One of the beneficiaries was a nonresident of the state, was not before the court, and was brought in by publication only. Under these circumstances reformation of the policy was decreed on the ground that the action was one in rem. While some of the language used in the opinion is rather broad, it does not appear that anything more was undertaken in Perry v. Young than to reform the policy. Only the form of the policy, the contents of...
To continue reading
Request your trial