Ingram v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 23 January 1933
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 482.
• Parties: INGRAM v. JOHNSON.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

147 So. 172

226 Ala. 68

INGRAM v. JOHNSON.

8 Div. 482.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 23, 1933

Certiorari to Court of Appeals.

Petition of Elizabeth Ingram for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in Elizabeth Ingram v. Ida Johnson, 147 So. 169.

Writ awarded, reversed and remanded.

Geo. B Jones and W. H. Mitchell, both of Florence, for petitioner.

Bradshaw & Barnett, of Florence, opposed.

ANDERSON Chief Justice.

As we understand, from the opinion of the Court of Appeals, the appellee was entitled to the fund in question, not because she was the named beneficiary and that the insured had no right to change same ordinarily, but the change or assignment made by him to his daughters was invalid because he had previously given or assigned the policy to said Ida Johnson which was without consideration, and that said assignee or donee had no insurable interest in the life of the insured Oscar Morgan. In other words, the question we are called upon to decide is the soundness of the opinion of the Court of Appeals in holding valid the gift or assignment of the policy to said Ida Johnson who had no insurable interest in the insured, Oscar Morgan.

In the case of Helmetag's Adm'x v. Miller, 76 Ala 183, 52 Am. Rep. 316, it was held that such an assignment as the one here involved was illegal and void as being in the nature of a wager policy. This case was decided at the December term, 1883, fifty years ago, and has been so frequently cited and approved as to become stare decisis. Alabama Gold Life Ins. Co. v. Mobile Mutual Ins. Co., 81 Ala. 332, 1 So. 561; Stoelker v Thornton, 88 Ala. 246, 6 So. 680, 6 L. R. A. 140; Behr v. Gerson, 95 Ala. 438-443, 11 So. 115; Sands, Adm'r, v. Hammell, 108 Ala. 626, 18 So. 489; Spies v. Stikes et al., 112 Ala. 584-588, 20 So. 959; Culver, Trustee, etc., v. Guyer, 129 Ala. 602-607, 29 So. 779; Troy v. London, 145 Ala. 280, 39 So. 713; Missouri State Life Ins. Co. v. Robertson Banking Co., 223 Ala. 13, 134 So. 25.

The case of McDonald v. McDonald et al., 215 Ala. 179, 110 So. 291, 293, is not in conflict with this rule. True, the opinion in this case makes the broad statement that "a policy of life insurance may, like other choses in action, be assigned by way of gift," but there was no attempt to recede from the exception that such a policy may not be assigned by way of gift to one who has no insurable interest in the assured. In fact, the assignment there was to the wife of the insured who had an insurable interest.

The case of Haase et al. v. First Nat. Bank of Anniston, 203 Ala....