Hewins v. Baker
| Decision Date | 17 May 1894 |
| Citation | 161 Mass. 320,37 N.E. 441 |
| Parties | HEWINS et al. v. BAKER. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
The written direction was as follows: Superscription:
The principal facts stated in the report, except as set forth in the opinion, are as follows: It appeared in evidence, from the testimony of the defendant, that Moody Merrill had been intrusted with a large amount of the defendant's property. That he had received from the defendant sums of money for investment in stock and other securities, and that these securities were kept in a fireproof box belonging to the defendant, to the handle of which was appended a tag placed there by the defendant, and on it, in the handwriting of the defendant, the words, "Property of Charlotte E. Baker, Boston, Mass." This box was kept in the fireproof vault in the office of the said Merrill. That Merrill collected her interest, and for the balance which she had not received Merrill gave her a note, and that he was indebted to her some $50,000. That in July, 1892, she went to Merrill's office, and asked him to give her security for his debt to her. Her testimony as to what occurred is set forth in the opinion. The policies numbered 121,715, 121,716, and 121,991 were policies of the Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company on the life of said Merrill for $5,000 each, the first two being dated February 8, 1873, and having been paid up in the term of 20 years by the payment by Merrill on February 8, 1893, of the annual premiums that became due on that day. The third policy had a term of 30 years, being dated February 28, 1873, and the annual premium was paid by Merrill on the 28th day of February, 1893, and the last premium thereon was payable February 28, 1902. They were all made payable "to his legal representatives." They each contained the following provision: "This policy is issued and accepted upon the following express conditions and agreements: *** (5) That no assignment of this policy shall be valid unless made in writing indorsed hereon, and that any claims against this company arising under this policy made by any assignee shall be subject to proof of interest." The policies numbered 20,550, 21,848, and 22,947 were policies of the Home Life Insurance Company on the life of said Merrill, the first one being for $3,000, dated April 4, 1871, paid up in 1891 at the end of a term of 20 years. The company in each of said policies last-named promises and agrees to and with said Moody Merrill to pay said sum to his executors, administrators, or assigns. The second of said policies was for $2,000, dated April 4, 1872, and was paid up in full at the expiration of a term of 20 years. The third of said policies was dated February 18, 1873, and was for $5,000, and was paid up in full in a term of 20 years, the last premium having been paid by said Merrill, February 18, 1893. All of said policies of the Home Life Insurance Company contained the following provision: "And it is further understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto *** that this policy shall not be assigned without the consent of the company, in writing previously obtained." The policy numbered 166,241 was a policy of the Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York on the life of said Moody Merrill for $10,000, dated April 25, 1875, and payable to said Moody Merrill, "his executors, administrators, or assigns." The policy was expressed in the body of the same to be upon the following conditions: "*** (7) The provisions and requirements printed by the company upon the back of this policy are hereby referred to and accepted as part of this contract as fully as if they were recited at length over the signatures hereto affixed." On the back of the policy is the following: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial