John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Bedford

• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: VINCENT, J.
• Citation: John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Bedford, 36 R.I. 116, 89 A. 154 (R.I. 1914)
• Decision Date: 02 January 1914
• Parties: JOHN HANCOCK MUT. LIFE INS. CO. v. BEDFORD et al.

89 A. 154

36 R.I. 116

JOHN HANCOCK MUT. LIFE INS. CO.

v. BEDFORD et al.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Jan. 2, 1914.

Appeal from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Charles F. Stearns, Judge.

Bill of interpleader by the John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company against Mary A. Bedford and others. From a decree in favor of the other respondents, respondent Lottie A. Bedford appeals. Affirmed and remanded.

Leonard W. Horton and W. Louis Frost, both of Providence, for appellant. Doran & Flanagan, of Providence, for appellee John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. Joseph H. Coen, of Providence, for other appellees.

VINCENT, J. This is an appeal from a decree of the superior court upon a bill of interpleader filed by the complainant for the purpose of determining to whom should be paid the proceeds of a certain policy of insurance, upon the life of George W. L. Bedford. It appears from the evidence that the John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company issued a policy upon the life of the said George W. L. Bedford in the sum of $1,000. According to the terms of the policy, it was made payable in case of death to the wife, Lottie A. Bedford, or to such other person or persons, as the said insured might thereafter designate. It was also provided in and by said policy that the insured might change the beneficiary from time to time on filing with the company a notice thereof in such form as the company might require. The policy also contained a further provision as follows: "No change of beneficiary is binding on the company unless filed at the home office and indorsed on the policy by the president or secretary." The policy was issued October 25, 1909, and on or about October 11, 1912, the insured filed with the company the following nomination for change of beneficiary: "I, being the insured under the policy hereinbefore mentioned, in the exercise of the privilege reserved to me therein, do hereby nominate my mother, Mary A. Bedford and my sister Georgeina B. Pegg, in equal shares, and the survivor of them to be the beneficiaries of said policy, still reserving to myself the privilege of making other changes, subject to all the privileges of said policy, and subject also to any existing pledge and assignment thereof. This nomination shall cancel and supersede any nomination of a beneficiary heretofore made under this policy. I hereby declare that no proceedings in bankruptcy or insolvency are pending against me. Dated at Providence, this 11th day of October, A. D. 1912." It further appeared from the evidence that the said George W. L. Bedford, having procured the aforesaid policy, gave it into the keeping of his wife, Lottie A. Bedford, who was then the beneficiary named therein. At a later period, induced by the care and attentions which he had received from his mother and sister during his illness, the insured desired to change the beneficiary under the policy and substitute for his wife his mother and sister. In order to effect this change and get the proper indorsement of the company thereon, he applied to his wife, Lottie A Bedford, for the policy, which she declined to surrender to him. Upon his failure to obtain the policy, he filed with the complainant company the paper already referred to nominating his mother and sister as beneficiaries. George W. L. Bedford, the insured, died November 10, 1912. The respondents Mary A. Bedford and Georgeina B. Pegg filed proofs of death with the company and claimed the proceeds of the policy, and later the said Lottie A. Bedford also made claim to the same. Under these conditions, the complainant filed a' bill praying that said respondents be compelled to interplead in establishment of their respective rights to said fund. There afterwards said complainant paid the sum of $1,000, less its costs and expenses, and the sum of $962.18 is now held in the registry of the superior court.

The said respondents having filed their answers to said bill of complaint, a hearing was had in the superior court upon the following agreed issues of fact: "(1) Did said respondent Lottie A. Bedford wrongfully take possession of said policy? (2) Did said George W. L Bedford ever demand that said Lottie A. Bedford return said policy to him? (3) Did said George W. L. Bedford make an application for a change in the beneficiary of said policy? (4) If said George W. L. Bedford has requested a change in beneficiary of said policy as alleged in the second paragraph of said bill of complaint, did he do so through the undue influence exerted on or over him by said respondents Mary A. Bedford and Georgeina B. Pegg? (5) Was said George W. L. Bedford competent to act with a view to the change of the beneficiary under said policy? (6) Was the beneficiary changed in accordance with the contract of insurance otherwise known as the policy? (7) Did said respondent Lottie A. Bedford pay all of the premiums due on said policy as they fell due? (8) Was and is the possession of said policy by said respondent Lottie A. Bedford coupled with a vested interest in said policy and the amount due thereunder? (9) Does the amount due under said policy belong to said respondent Lottie A. Bedford or to the said respondents Mary A. Bedford and Georgeina B. Pegg?"

The superior court found that, as between the parties responde...