Illinois Bankers' Life Ass'n v. Collins

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: HEARD
• Citation: Illinois Bankers' Life Ass'n v. Collins , 341 Ill. 548, 173 N.E. 465 (Ill. 1930)
• Decision Date: 10 December 1930
• Docket Number: No. 20289.,20289.
• Parties: ILLINOIS BANKERS' LIFE ASS'N v. COLLINS et al.

341 Ill. 548

173 N.E. 465

ILLINOIS BANKERS' LIFE ASS'N

v.COLLINS et al.

No. 20289.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 25, 1930.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 10, 1930.

Bill of interpleader by the Illinois Bankers' Life Association against James T. Collins, as administrator of the estate of Thomas C. Collins, deceased, and others. Decree for defendants other than defendant named was reversed by the Appellate Court (258 Ill. App. 302), and cause remanded, with directions to enter a decree in favor of the heirs of Thomas C. Collins, deceased, and defendants A. C. Helms and others appealed and were granted a certificate of importance.

Decree of the circuit court affirmed, and the judgment of the Appellate Court reversed. H. E. Skinner and D. L. Duty, both of Marion, for appellants.

Appeal from Appellate Court, Fourth District, on Appeal from Circuit Court, Williamson County; D. T. Hartwell, Judge.

White & Quindry, of Marison, for appellees.

HEARD, J.

The Illinois Bankers' Life Association, on June 21, 1921, issued a policy of insurance in which it agreed to pay to Thomas C. Collins, husband of Maggie E. Collins, as beneficiary, the sum of $1,000 upon her death. On February 22, 1927, Mrs. Collins, the insured, was murdered by the husband, Thomas C. Collins, the beneficiary, who shortly thereafter killed himself. They both died intestate and left no children or descendants of children. On July 1, 1927, A. C. Helms, Gus Helms, Mary Watson, Wayne Helms, and Lorraine Helms, as collateral heirs at law and next of kin of Mrs. Collins, filed suit against the Illinois Bankers' Life Association in the circuit court of Williamson county to recover the insurance. James T. Collins was appointed administrator of the estate of Thomas C. Collins, deceased, and on August 4, 1927, he, as such administrator, filed suit in the same court to recover the same insurance. He claimed the fund for his intestate, asserting that Mrs. Collins died prior to her husband, and that the husband, under the law of descent, was the sole distributee of the fund, while the appellants claimed the fund as the only surviving members of the class eligible, under the laws of this state, to take the fund. The Illinois Bankers' Life Association filed its bill of interpleader in the circuit court of Williamson county, making the several claimants parties defendant, and tendering into court $1,000, to be distributed as the court might direct. The cause was referred to the master in chancery, who reported recommending a decree in favor of the appellants, and a decree was entered in accordance therewith, ordering that the fund be paid to them. From this decree James T. Collins, administrator, appealed to the Appellate Court for the Fourth District, which court reversed the decree of the circuit court and remanded the cause, with directions to enter a decree directing that the fund be paid to the heirs of Thomas C. Collins. From this judgment of the Appellate Court the appellants applied for and were granted a certificate of importance, and they have appealed to this court.

[3] The sole question involved here is to whom the fund should be paid. By the terms of the policy of insurance, the insured had the right to change the beneficiary at any time she desired, and the beneficiary therefore had no vested interest therein during her lifetime. The policy was not made payable to the insured nor to her legal representatives, and so the fund payable was not an asset of her estate, and the laws of descent with reference to the distribution of her personal property are not here in question. Thomas C. Collins was named in the policy as beneficiary, and upon his wife's death he became entitled to be paid the fund by the insurance company directly, without the intervention of her legal representatives, unless such a construction of the policy would be contrary to the public policy of this state. The public policy of a state is to be found embodied in its Constitution and its statutes, and, when these are silent on the subject, in the decisions of its courts. People v. City of Chicago, 321 Ill. 466, 152 N. E. 141;Harding v. American Glucose Co., 182 Ill. 551, 55 N. E. 577,64 L. R. A. 738, 74 Am. St. Rep. 189;People v. Shedd, 241 Ill. 155, 89 N. E. 332;Zeigler v. Illinois Trust and Savings Bank, 245 Ill. 180, 91 N. E. 1041,28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1112,19 Ann. Cas. 127;Merchants' Trust Co. v. City of Chicago, 264 Ill. 76, 105 N. E. 726. Limiting their actions to questions left open by the Constitution and the statutes, courts may apply the principles of the common law to the requirements of the social, moral, and material conditions of the people of the state, and declare what rule of public policy seems best adapted to promote the peace, good order, and general welfare of the community, and for that reason the decisions of its courts are to be investigated in determining the public policy of the state. Collins v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 232 Ill. 37, 83 N. E. 542,14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 356, 122 Am. St. Rep. 54,13 Ann. Cas. 129. The Constitution and the statutes of this state are silent on the question of public policy here involved, but this court, in Knights of Honor v. Menkhausen, 209 Ill. 277, 70 N. E. 567, prior to the issuance of the policy here in question, has held that it was contrary to the public policy of this state to so construe a contract of life insurance that a murderer might be the beneficiary under such policy on the life of his victim either as beneficiary or as heir, that in such case the situation, so far as his rights were concerned, was the same as though after the issuance of the policy he had been divorced from his wife and she had thereafter died without having any alteration made in the certificate, and that the fund was to be paid neither to the murder nor to the estate of the deceased, but to the next of kin of the deceased other than the murderer. To the same effect are Johnson v. Metropolitan Life Inc. Co., 85 W. Va. 70, 100 S. E. 865, 7 A. L. R. 823;Slocum v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 245 Mass. 565, 139 N. E. 816, 27 A. L. R. 1517;Filmore v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 82 Ohio St. 208, 92 N. E. 26,28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 675, 137 Am. St. Rep. 778;Schmidt v. Northern Life Ass'n, 112 Iowa, 41, 83 N. E. 800, 801, 51 L. R. A. 141, 84 Am. St. Rep. 323;Equitable Life Assurance Society v. Weightman, 61...