Harrison v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.

• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri
• Writing for the Court: Myers & Snerly, of Chicago, Ill., and Farrington & Curtis, of Springfield, Mo., for defendants
• Citation: Harrison v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 55 F.Supp. 241 (W.D. Mo. 1944)
• Decision Date: 24 March 1944
• Docket Number: No. 412,413.,412
• Parties: HARRISON et al. v. HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO. OF HARTFORD, CONN. TEMPLETON et al. v. INSURANCE CO. OF NORTH AMERICA OF PENNSYLVANIA.

55 F. Supp. 241

HARRISON et al. v. HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO. OF HARTFORD, CONN.

TEMPLETON et al. v. INSURANCE CO. OF NORTH AMERICA OF PENNSYLVANIA.

Nos. 412, 413.

District Court, W. D. Missouri, S. D.

March 24, 1944.

James P. Hawkins, of Buffalo, Mo., and Charles W. Crossan, of Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiffs.

Myers & Snerly, of Chicago, Ill., and Farrington & Curtis, of Springfield, Mo., for defendants.

REEVES, District Judge.

The question for decision in each of the above cases is whether the plaintiff School District had the right and power to assign its chose in action to plaintiff Dorothy Harrison in case No. 412 and Frederick J. Templeton in case No. 413.

It is contended by the removing defendants: (a) That the assignment was fraudulent and for the sole purpose of defeating the jurisdiction of this court, and (b) that the School District was without authority in law to make such an assignment.

Each of these contentions will be noticed and discussed.

1. On the question of fraud in making a colorable assignment to prevent removal, the Supreme Court of the United States in Oakley v. Goodnow, 118 U.S. 43, 6 S.Ct. 944, 945, 30 L.Ed. 61, said:

"`* * * it may perhaps be a good defense to an action in a state court to show that a colorable assignment has been made to deprive the United States court of jurisdiction; but, as before said, it would be a defense to the action, and not a ground of removing that cause into the federal court.'"

In this opinion the court quoted approvingly from an identical ruling made in Provident Savings Life Assur. Society v. Ford, 114 U.S. 635, 641, 5 S.Ct. 1104, 29 L.Ed. 261.

The courts have uniformly followed this rule. In addition to the above, a statute of Missouri, being Section 6005, R.S. Mo.1939, Mo.R.S.A., contemplates the assignment of insurance benefits. Note this language:

"* * * and in all actions brought by nonresidents of this state upon any policy issued in this state in which such nonresident is named beneficiary or which has been assigned to such nonresident * * *."

This provision was inserted so as to make insurance companies doing business in this state subject to the service of process where a nonresident assignee of the benefits under a policy issued in this state brought suit.

Judge Ellison of the Supreme Court in a very lucid opinion (State ex rel. Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Harris reported in 343 Mo. 252, 121 S.W.2d 141, 119 A.L.R. 862) sustained the right.

The Springfield Court of Appeals in Fogle v. Equitable Life Assur. Co., 123 S.W.2d 595, loc. cit. 597, held unequivocally that:

"* * * the general rule is that a cause of action may be assigned for the sole purpose of defeating removal. Schepman v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n, 231 Mo.App. 651, 104 S.W.2d 777."

2. The remaining question is whether the school district is authorized under the law to make assignment of its choses in action. Under the statute law of Missouri a school district is a municipal corporation. Section 10406 R.S.Mo.1939, Mo.R.S.A., provides:

"Such districts shall be bodies corporate under the numbers and designation thus given them by the county courts, and shall by such numbers and...