Haberfeld v. Mayer

• Decision Date: 08 January 1917
• Docket Number: 75
• Citation: 256 Pa. 151,100 A. 587
• Parties: Haberfeld v. Mayer, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

100 A. 587

256 Pa. 151

Haberfeld v. Mayer, Appellant

No. 75

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

January 8, 1917

Argued October 11, 1916

Appeal, No. 75, Oct. T., 1916, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. Allegheny Co., April T., 1915, No. 2136, on verdict for plaintiff, in case of William Haberfeld v. Cornelia Mayer Executrix of the Estate of Victor Mayer, Deceased. Affirmed.

Feigned issue to determine the ownership of the proceeds of a life insurance policy.

The facts appear in the following opinion of SHAFER, P.J., sur defendant's motion for a new trial and for judgment n.o.v.:

The proceeding is a feigned issue to determine whether the plaintiff or defendant is entitled to the proceeds of a policy of life insurance. The material facts as they appear from the evidence are that William Haberfeld and Victor Mayer on October 30, 1913, entered into a partnership in the business for foreign exchange, Haberfeld loaning to Mayer fifteen hundred dollars, which Mayer used to purchase his share of the partnership; and during the continuance of the partnership and while the whole sum of $1,500 was owing from Mayer to Haberfeld a policy of insurance was taken out by Mayer on his own life, payable to "his business partner William Haberfeld." The policy gave Mayer the right to change the beneficiary, and the premiums were all paid by Mayer. It does not appear that Haberfeld had anything to do with taking out the policy except an inquiry which he made of the agent of the company some time before the policy was applied for, as to the making of a policy for the protection of loans.

On September 1, 1914, Mayer sold all his interest in the partnership to Haberfeld for the sum of nine hundred dollars the agreement reciting that the purchase price of $900 is a debt of Mayer to Haberfeld "and the receipt of the same as purchase price of the business is acknowledged by Victor Mayer." We understand it to be conceded by the plaintiff that the $900 was a part of the debt of $1,500 and that therefore, by this transaction the debt was reduced to $600. Mayer died on January 4, 1915, without having changed the beneficiary in the policy. Proofs of death were furnished to the insurance company by Haberfeld, and the company was notified by the defendant, executrix of Mayer, not to pay the money to Haberfeld, whereupon the insurance company obtained leave to pay the money into court, the amount being $1,958.92, the proceeds of a policy of $2,000.00.

We are unable to find in the record any order as to a framing of an issue, except the making absolute of a rule to show cause why an issue should not be framed. The parties appear to have assumed that the beneficiary should be plaintiff and the executrix of the insured defendant; and they proceeded to file an elaborate statement of claim and affidavit of defense, and even to argue a rule for judgment thereon. Taking these affidavits and the plea of nonassumpsit to indicate the issue to be tried it was, whether the beneficiary or the executrix of the insured was entitled to the money in court, and if each was entitled to a share, then to how much. As the executrix is really the actor in the proceedings she should have been made plaintiff, but the form is not material. There is no question of fact to be submitted to the jury. No evidence was given by the defendant that any of the debt of $1,500 admitted to have been originally owing to the plaintiff had been paid except the $900 above referred to. On the trial a verdict was directed for the plaintiff the beneficiary, for the whole amount. The defendant now moves for judgment in her favor for the whole amount non obstante veredicto and for a new trial.

In our view of ...