Farmers Mut. Fire & Lightning Ins. Co. v. Crowley, 20602.
Citation | 187 S.W.2d 346 |
Decision Date | 30 April 1945 |
Docket Number | No. 20602.,20602. |
Parties | FARMERS MUT. FIRE & LIGHTNING INS. CO. OF ANDREW COUNTY v. CROWLEY et al. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Andrew County; R. B. Bridgeman, Judge.
Interpleader suit by Farmers Mutual Fire & Lightning Insurance Company of Andrew County, Missouri, against J. O. Crowley, Dale Harvey and others, residuary legatees under will of Mary H. Crowley, deceased, to determine right to proceeds of a fire policy. From a decree that J. O. Crowley was entitled to the funds, Dale Harvey and others appeal.
Judgment reversed and remanded, with directions, and cause transferred to the Supreme Court.
J. Harry Latham and Breit & Roberts, all of Savannah, for appellants.
Lloyd W. Booher, of Savannah, for respondent.
This suit involves a contest over the proceeds of a fire insurance policy. There was a decree finding that the respondent was entitled to the fund. Appellants have appealed.
The facts show that plaintiff is the widower of Mary H. Crowley; that the appellants are her nieces and nephews; that during the lifetime of the deceased she owned a farm in her own right, consisting of approximately 118 acres in Andrew County, on which was situated a dwelling house (the subject of the insurance herein involved); that her husband, the respondent herein, owned a farm of approximately the same size adjoining her farm; that they lived in the dwelling house on deceased's land, respondent farming the two farms as one unit; that on the 5th day of April, 1939, plaintiff, the Farmers' Mutual Fire and Lightning Insurance Company (the same being a mutual assessment company), issued to Mary H. Crowley a fire insurance policy insuring, for a period of five years, the dwelling house on said land, against loss by fire or lightning in the sum of $2500, and the contents in the sum of $1000. The policy, among other provisions, contained the following: "This entire policy shall be void * * * (a) if the interest of insured be other than unconditional and sole ownership; or (b) if the subject of insurance be a building on ground not owned by the insured in fee simple; * * * or (d) if any change, other than by the death of an insured, take place in the interest, title or possession of the subject of insurance".
On February 23, 1940, Mary H. Crowley died testate and childless, leaving surviving her, her husband, the respondent herein and nieces and nephews, the appellants herein. By the terms of the last will and testament of the deceased she gave all of her property to the respondent for and during his lifetime or so long as he remained a widower. Certain specific bequests were made in the will, which have been paid. The appellants are the residuary legatees.
On May 12, 1941, the insurance company, at the request of the respondent, attached a rider to the policy, reading as follows:
On January 30, 1944, the dwelling house and most of the contents were destroyed by fire. The loss was agreed by all parties to be the full amount of the policy on the dwelling, to-wit, $2500 and $800 as to the contents. The respondent claimed and demanded of the company payment of all the insurance to him. The remaindermen (appellants herein) made claim to an interest in the insurance proceeds. Adverse claims having been made to the company for the payment of the insurance, the company filed its petition in the Circuit Court of Andrew County, asking leave to pay the proceeds of said policy into court and that the claimants be required to interplead and establish their respective claims thereto and that the company be discharged.
The petition was granted, the money ($3300) was paid into court and the company was discharged from any further liability. Thereafter, respondent and the appellants filed their several interpleas, the respondent claiming the whole proceeds, and the appellants claiming that respondent is merely entitled to the income from said proceeds so long as he lives or if he remarries, until his remarriage. Appellants, at the trial, disclaimed any interest in the insurance on the contents of the dwelling.
As before stated, the record discloses that respondent farmed his wife's farm and his own farm as one...
To continue reading
Request your trial