Hansbarger v. Spangler
| Decision Date | 28 April 1936 |
| Docket Number | 8311. |
| Parties | HANSBARGER v. SPANGLER et al. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Submitted April 21, 1936.
Syllabus by the Court.
A soldier having a war risk policy of insurance was killed in action in 1918. His father was beneficiary under the policy and, under the West Virginia statute of descent and distribution then in effect (Code 1923, c. 78, §§ 1, 9) he was also the sole distributee of his son's estate. The father died testate in 1932. In a controversy over the manner of distribution of the amount of the commuted value of the unpaid portion of the insurance, Held: that said fund must be treated as having become a part of the son's estate as of the time of his death and of passing thence (under the statute of distribution), on the death of the father, to the father's estate, there to be disposed of under the will of the father, who died testate.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Monroe County.
Interpleader proceeding by J. H. Hansbarger, administrator of the estate of Howard Spangler, deceased, against David C. Spangler and others and Anna J. Spangler. From an adverse decree last-named defendant appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
M. P Farrier, of Pearisburg, Va., for appellant.
This is an appeal from a decree of the circuit court of Monroe County making disposition of funds arising under a policy of United States war risk insurance which had been issued to Howard Spangler who was later killed in action as a member of the United States Expeditionary Forces in France. He was unmarried and without issue. The named beneficiary in the policy was the soldier's father, James E. Spangler.
The father died in September, 1932. In December of that year, the plaintiff, J. H. Hansbarger, was appointed administrator of the personal estate of Howard Spangler, deceased. Soon thereafter, the administrator received from the United States Veterans' Bureau the sum of $3,746.00, representing the commuted value of all unpaid installments under the aforesaid policy of insurance.
The controversy involves the question of the proper manner of distribution of said fund by the administrator.
On the one hand, the fund is claimed in its entirety by Anna J Spangler, wife of James G. Spangler, who is one of the surviving nine sons of James E. Spangler, deceased. The opposing claim is by the said surviving sons, excepting the husband of Anna.
In the face of these conflicting claims, the administrator instituted this interpleader proceeding. The disputants answered, presenting their respective contentions. The circuit court held that the nine sons of James E. Spangler, deceased, are the rightful distributees, in equal proportion, of the said fund. Anna Spangler, complaining of this result, was awarded an appeal from the trial chancellor's decree.
Anna Spangler's claim is based on James E. Spangler's last will and testament, wherein, after providing for payment of his debts and bequeathing one dollar each to nine sons, he devised and bequeathed the residue of his estate, specifically including the unpaid portion of said war risk insurance, to his daughter-in-law, Anna Spangler. In support of her claim of right to take under this bequest, she relies, first, on the World War Veterans' Act 1924, § 303, as amended by Act of March 4, 1925, § 14 (U.S.C. title 38, § 514 [38 U.S.C.A. § 514]), which provides that if the designated beneficiary "survives the insured and dies prior to receiving all of the two hundred and forty installments or all such as are payable and applicable, there shall be paid to the estate of the insured the present value of the monthly installments thereafter payable." Secondly, she relies on the West Virginia statute of descent and distribution, Code 1923, c. 78, §§ 1 and 9. In pursuance of said statutory provisions, federal and state, the said claimant further urges (1) that on the death of the father, the unpaid portion of the insurance became the estate of Howard Spangler, deceased, as of the date of his death; (2) that the person or persons entitled under the law to take the personal estate of Howard Spangler, deceased, must be determined as of the time of his death; (3) that at his death, the father, James E. Spangler, since deceased, was entitled to take the entirety of his said deceased son's personal property; (4) that the father as such distributee was therefore entitled to make bequest of said fund.
On behalf of the claimants in opposition to Anna, it is asserted that they are the heirs at law of Howard and therefore are the persons to whom distribution of his personal estate should be made. Further, it is insisted that the matter of distribution of the personal estate of Howard Spangler, deceased, has been determined in the county court of Monroe County in a proceeding involving the settlement of said decedent's estate; that the said court referred the settlement of Howard's estate to a commissioner of accounts who gave notice as required by law and thereafter made his report in respect of claims against the estate and ascertained that there should be distribution of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial