Haskins v. Kendall

Decision Date02 March 1893
Citation158 Mass. 224,33 N.E. 495
PartiesHASKINS v. KENDALL.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

The facts fully appear from the following report by Barker, J.:

"The Massachusetts Mutual Aid Society is a corporation incorporated February 17, 1879, under Pub.St. c. 115, and after the passage of St.1885, c. 183, changed the form of its benefit certificates so as to conform to the provisions of said statute, and acted thereunder. Jonathan H. Haskins then of Amherst, Mass., was the husband of Louisa G Haskins. They had two children,--a son, born April 25 1857, died October 13, 1884; and a daughter, born April 29, 1866, died November 5, 1886. Neither of these children was ever married. Before the passage of St. of 1885, c. 183, said Jonathan became a member of the said Massachusetts Mutual Aid Society, and took out two benefit certificates, each payable to Louisa G., his wife. On January 1, 1886, in order to bring the certificates under the provisions of the Statutes of 1885,c. 183, the two certificates then outstanding were surrendered to the company, and in place of them two other certificates were issued, one for $3,000, and the other for $1,000, both payable, as before, to Louisa G. Haskins. On June 11, 1888, the last-mentioned benefit certificate, for $1,000, was surrendered to the company, and another issued in its place, bearing same date as former, payable to one Henry F. Hills, of Amherst, upon a written request for a change of beneficiary, in the form required and used by the company, signed by both Jonathan H. and Louisa G. Haskins, the latter further releasing all interest and claim. Hills was a creditor of Jonathan H. Haskins, and the certificate was issued to him as security only, and it was issued to him upon the written request of both Jonathan H. Haskins and of Louisa G., his wife. The applications for all the certificates and the payments of all assessments were made by Jonathan H. Haskins, who continued a member of the society, in good standing, until the time of his death. Louisa G. Haskins died on July 17, 1889, intestate, and without issue, and Jonathan H. Haskins was appointed administrator of her estate June 10, 1890, and, as such administrator, filed bond and affidavit of notice, and collected an insurance of $250 on her life, and paid her funeral expenses and debts, although he filed no inventory or account as such administrator. Jonathan H. Haskins remained unmarried, and died January 4, 1891, intestate, and on January 13, 1891, Henry W. Haskins was appointed administrator of his estate, and on February 3, 1891, the same Henry W. Haskins was appointed administrator of the estate of Louisa G. Haskins, (not administrator de bonis non,) giving bonds in the estate of Jonathan H. in the sum of $500, and in the estate of Louisa G. in the sum of $3,500, and on December 11, 1891, giving an additional bond in the estate of Jonathan H. in the sum of $8,000 This appointment remains unrevoked, and also his appointment as administrator, etc., of Jonathan H. After his appointment as administrator, etc., of Jonathan H. Haskins, Henry W. Haskins applied to the officers of the society for the payment of the two benefit certificates. The company required him to furnish it with the receipt of an administrator of Louisa G. Haskins, and the receipt of Henry F. Hills, as well as with the receipt of the administrator of Jonathan H. He therefore procured his own appointment as administrator of, etc., of Louisa G., and procured a receipt of Hills, and made a receipt as administrator of, etc., of Jonathan H., and another as administrator of, etc., of Louisa G.; and upon giving to the society these three receipts, about June 1, 1891, he received from the society the sum of four thousand dollars in payment of both certificates. The whole $4,000 was paid to him by the society, and of this sum he paid Hills the sum of $454.28, and retained the balance. In the estate of Jonathan H. Haskins, Henry W., as administrator, filed an inventory on June 9,
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • Schmidt v. N. Life Ass'n
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 6 de outubro de 1900
    ...husband, who was the assured, and it was held that there was a resulting trust in favor of the assured's estate. See, also, Haskins v. Kendall (Mass.) 33 N. E. 495. Commenting on this last case, Mr. Bacon, in his work on Benefit Societies (2d Ed., par. 243a), says, “Conceding the rule to be......
  • Schmidt v. The Northern Life Association
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 6 de outubro de 1900
    ... ... that there was a resulting trust in favor of the ... assured's estate. See, also, Haskins v. Kendall, ... 158 Mass. 224 (33 N.E. 495). Commenting on this [112 Iowa 49] ... last case, Mr. Bacon, in his work on Benefit Societies, (2d ... ...
  • Finnell v. Franklin
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • 2 de junho de 1913
    ... ... Such, also, is the ... principle recognized and applied in Bancroft v. Russell, 157 ... Mass. 47, 31 N.E. 710, and in Haskins v. Kendall, 158 Mass ... 224, 33 N.E. 495, 35 Am.St.Rep. 490, also relied upon by ... defendant. But here the corporation had power to raise a ... ...
  • Millard v. Brayton
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 26 de fevereiro de 1901
    ... ... of the two, the husband or the wife, was the one with whom ... the contract was made. In Haskins v. Kendall, 158 ... Mass. 224, 33 N.E. 495, it directly appears that the policy ... was taken out by the husband, and that the contract was with ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT