Egleston v. United States, 696.
| Decision Date | 18 April 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 696.,696. |
| Citation | 71 F. Supp. 114 |
| Parties | EGLESTON v. UNITED STATES et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Illinois |
Thomas A. Graham, of Danville, Ill., R. E. Boley, of Olney, Ill., and Benjamin I. Norwood, of Danville, Ill., for plaintiff.
Robert Z. Hickman, of Danville, Ill., Howard L. Brockman, of Olney, Ill., Ernest R. McHale, of E. St. Louis, Ill., and William M. Lytle, of Chicago, Ill., for defendants.
The mother of a deceased soldier brought this suit to recover $10,000 insurance in two policies issued by the Government, the soldier having been killed in the course of training on March 25, 1943. She made defendants, the United States Government and the soldier's widow. The Government has filed a pleading stating that, inasmuch as it is unable to determine to which of the claimants the money should be paid, it holds the money as stakeholder. The widow has filed a cross-claim to recover the amount due. The issue presented is similar to that arising in cases of interpleader.
The soldier enlisted in April, 1941. He was killed, while in the Pacific Islands, by automobile accident. He named as beneficiary in his insurance policies his mother. He met the girl who became his wife apparently in the year 1942 while he was on furlough. Later she accompanied his parents to visit him in camp in June or July, 1942. Following this the soldier visited his family in August, 1942, and on August 3, 1942, he and the young lady were married. One day later he returned to Camp Forest, and still later his wife visited him for a few days before he sailed for the Pacific in late August, 1942. On August 17, 1942, he wrote from Camp Forest to the parents of his wife, expressing his love and affection for their daughter and saying that he was carrying $10,000 insurance "made out to her." After sailing, on August 27, 1942, he wrote his wife saying that he was providing an allotment for her and adding Following this, Mrs. Egleston wrote the Veterans Administration a letter, delivered on September 9, 1942, in which she asked to have the beneficiary changed to show her as the principal and the insured's mother, Mrs. Mildred Egleston, as the contingent beneficiary. The Administration did not consider this in accord with its regulations and said that the change must be in writing. Apparently, Mrs. Egleston did not appreciate the necessity of forwarding to the Veterans Administration her husband's letter of August 27, 1942, explicitly directing the change of beneficiary. Later, some two months before the insured's death, on January 18, 1943, Captain DeCamp, his superior officer wrote, at the soldiers request, to the Director of Insurance that Egleston desired to change the beneficiary in his insurance policies as follows: principal beneficiary, Mrs. Robert Carl Egleston, Olney, Illinois; contingent, Mrs. Bruce Egleston, Olney, Illinois. And on the 13th day of November, 1943, the Captain made an affidavit to the effect that he had written this letter at the request of the deceased who said that he wanted the change of beneficiary completed. To the same effect, is an affidavit of the company clerk. One week before his death, the soldier wrote in endearing terms to his wife, expressing all the love and affection for her that any one could express.
The files of the Veterans Administration disclose that, after wavering from one side to the other, the Veterans Administration, on May 27, 1945, wrote the widow as follows: "Based on the evidence of record a determination has been made to the effect that the insured requested a change in the designation of the beneficiary prior to his death, changing the name of the beneficiary from his mother, Mildred Egleston, to his wife, Florence Egleston." In the War Department's files certified by the Secretary of War, is the letter from the soldier's captain to the effect that the insured wanted his beneficiary changed. Obviously this is a communication from a third person, but it is from the captain of the soldier in the regular transactions of army affairs. In the soldier's last letter to his wife, he commented upon "the fine captain" he had. I think it entirely reasonable to infer from the evidence that the captain was the agent of the insured. However, in this connection, I have not given consideration to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Joseph v. United States
...in a letter, Gann v. Meek, 5 Cir., 165 F.2d 857; Foster v. Winingham, 10 Cir., 169 F.2d 46, at page 48; Egleston v. United States, D.C.E.D. Ill., 71 F.Supp. 114, at pages 116, 117, affirmed 7 Cir., 168 F.2d 67; Lincoln Bank & Trust Co. v. United States, D.C.Ky., 71 F.Supp. 745; Kendig v. Ke......
-
Prose v. Davis, 9839.
...143 F.2d 573; Roberts v. United States, 4 Cir., 157 F.2d 906; Rosenschein v. Citron, 83 U.S.App. D.C. 346, 169 F.2d 885; Egleston v. United States, D.C., 71 F.Supp. 114, affirmed, 7 Cir., 168 F.2d We think the undisputed evidence in this case fully satisfies these requirements. It is immate......
-
United States v. Pahmer
...his mother's possession immediately upon the discovery of his suicide, was enough to accomplish the intended change. Egleston v. United States, D.C., 71 F.Supp. 114, affirmed, 7 Cir., 168 F.2d 67; Collins v. United States, supra; Lincoln Bank & Trust Co. v. United States, D.C., 71 F. Supp. ......
-
Shapiro v. United States, 85
...S. 829, 67 S.Ct. 870; Kaschefsky v. Kaschefsky, 6 Cir., 110 F.2d 836; Claffy v. Forbes, D.C.W.D.Wash., 280 F. 233; Egleston v. United States, D.C.E.D.Ill., 71 F. Supp. 114; Citron v. United States, D.C. D.C., 69 F.Supp. 830. In the Citron decision the insured had used Form No. 41 to change ......