John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Lawder
| Decision Date | 13 February 1901 |
| Citation | 22 R.I. 416,48 A. 383 |
| Parties | JOHN HANCOCK MUT. LIFE INS. CO. v. LAWDER et al. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Interpleader by the John Hancock MUtual Life Insurance Comdany against Willian Lawder, as administrator of the estate of Mary A. Lawder, deceased, and James Reynolds, as administrator of the estate of Kate A. Lawder, deceased.
McGuinness & Doran, for complainant. Hugh J. Carroll and Thomas Riley, Jr., for respondent Lawder. James E. Banigan, for respondent Reynolds.
On a bill of interpleader the complainant has paid into court the sum which it said is due on a policy of insurance on the life of Kate A. Lawder. The fund is claimed by the executor of Mary A. Lawder, the applicant for the policy, and also by James Reynolds, the husband, and administrator of the estate of, Kate A. Lawder, upon whose life the policy was issued. The policy was made payable to the beneficiary, as provided in the application, but the application names no beneficiary. Mary A. Lawder was the stepmother of Kate A. Lawder, a child about 8 years of age when the policy was issued. The payment of the money by the company removes the question whether there was a misrepresentation in the application.
The agreement of respondent Reynolds is that Mary A. Lawder, as stepmother, bad no insurable interest in the life of the stepdaughter, and hence the policy could not be payable to her, and must therefore be payable to the estate of the person whose life was insured. In Johnson v. Van Epps. 110 Ill. 551, 503, and in Order Mut Companions v. Griest, 76 Cal. 494, 18 Pac. 652, it was held that no one but the company can raise the question of insurable interest, and that the payment of the money into court removes this question, also, leaving the disposition of the fund to be determined simply by the contract as made. Looking then at the contract, we find that the application was made by Mary A. Lawder, and that the policy was based upon the application. So far, then, she was the contracting party. The answer of the executor, the husband of Mary A. Lawder, avers that she paid all the premiums while she lived, and that he paid all the premiums afterwards down to the death of Kate A. Reynolds. The answer of the administrator of Kate A. Reynolds avers that she paid the premiums in part after her marriage. The only proof is the receipt book of the company, in which the premiums on this policy are receipted for in one sum, covering this and four other policies on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Novosel v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada
...paid the premium thereon. Knowles v. Knowles, (Mass.) 91 N.E. 213; Mitchell v. Union Life Company, (Me.) 71 Am. Dec. 529; Hancock Company v. Lawder, (R. I.) 48 A. 384. The case of Wentworth v. Equitable Life Assurance cited appellant differs on the facts. And the same may be said of the cas......
-
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Roberto, 1143.
...Div. 53, 48 N. Y. S. 548; LaRaw v. Prudential Ins. Co., 50 App. D. C. 199, 12 F.(2d) 140, 49 A. L. R. 935. In John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Lawder, 22 R. I. 416, 48 A. 383, it was held that the executor of the woman who had contracted for insurance on the life of her stepdaughter, and ......
-
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Tutalo, 1221.
...of the insured is not before us. That issue was removed when the complainant company paid the fund into court John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Lawder, 22 R. I. 416, 48 A. 383. The respondent Tutalo claims that the contract of insurance was directly with him, and that the respondent Hasn......
-
Modern Woodmen of America v. Brennan, Civ. A. No. 1318.
...when the insurer pays the fund into court. Prudential Ins. Co. v. Tutalo, 1935, 55 R.I. 160, 178 A. 859; John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Lawder, 1901, 22 R.I. 416, 48 A. 383. In the instant case the evidence discloses the existence of an agreement, or an understanding, between the sister......