Hersam v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 04 January 1917
• Citation: 114 N.E. 711,225 Mass. 425
• Parties: HERSAM v. AETNA LIFE INS. CO. et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

225 Mass. 425

114 N.E. 711

HERSAM

v.AETNA LIFE INS. CO. et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Jan. 4, 1917.

Appeal from Municipal Court of Boston, Appellate Division.

Action by A. Hersam, executor, against the AEtna Life Insurance Company and Ellena T. Palmeter, claimant, to determine the right to proceeds of an insurance policy. From a judgment of the appellate division in favor of claimant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and rendered.

Jas. E. Young, of Boston, for appellant.

Herbert S. Riley, of Boston, for appellee.

DE COURCY, J.

The insurance policy was issued on the life of Martha A. Thompson, the plaintiff's testatrix, and was ‘payable to her husband, Eben S. Thompson, or in the event of his death before hers to their children, their executors, administrators or assigns.’ It was a paid up policy for $612, executed and delivered on or about June 28, 1877, and apparently was given in consideration of the surrender of the life policy for $1,000, dated June 11, 1865. Eben S. died February 3, 1877, or more than four months before the policy in question was issued. No children were born to him and Martha A., but he had a daughter by a previous wife, namely, Ellena T. Palmeter, who is the claimant in this action.

The agreed statement of facts is meager. It is not questioned that this policy was rightly issued by the company, after the death of Eben S. Thompson. In the absence of the application and the policy we infer that the contract was between the company and Mrs. Thompson, and that she paid the premiums. St. 1913, c. 716 § 5. See Millard v. Brayton, 177 Mass. 533, 59 N. E. 436,52 L. R. A. 117, 83 Am. St. Rep. 294. The record sets out only the above quoted clause in the policy. The sole question raised by the report and argued by counsel is one of interpretation of this clause, thereby determining which of the parties is entitled to the insurance money.

The first contention of the claimant is that she is entitled to the proceeds of the policy as the only child of said Eben S. Thompson. But we see no reason for interpreting the word ‘their’ in other than its ordinary collective meaning, referring to children of both Martha and Eben, and not to children of Eben by another wife. Crandall v. Ahern, 200 Mass. 77, 85 N. E. 886;Crapo v. Pierce, 187 Mass. 141, 72 N. E. 935. The language viewed in the light of the circumstances under which it was used, manifests no different purpose. Considering the present policy by itself, the language was appropriate to provide for a possible posthumous child of Eben. The reasonable inference from the agreed facts, however-and indeed the actual fact as stated in the defendant's answer-is that the language simply followed the wording of the earlier policy, which was dated June 11, 1865, when the two well might have anticipated the likelihood of having children. 25 Cyc. 889, and cases cited.

The claimant further contends that if not entitled to the proceeds of the policy as daughter, she takes it as...