Kansas City Life Ins. Co. v. Rainey, 38930.

• Decision Date: 05 September 1944
• Docket Number: No. 38931.,No. 38930.,38930.,38931.
• Parties: KANSAS CITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Corporation, v. JESSIE A. RAINEY, Respondent, PAUL D. BARTLETT, Executor of the Estate of HERBERT F. HALL, Deceased, Appellant. KANSAS CITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. IRVING V. SANDFORD, Respondent, PAUL D. BARTLETT, Executor of the Estate of HERBERT F. HALL, Deceased, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

182 S.W.2d 624 KANSAS CITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Corporation,
v.
JESSIE A. RAINEY, Respondent, PAUL D. BARTLETT, Executor of the Estate of HERBERT F. HALL, Deceased, Appellant. KANSAS CITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
IRVING V. SANDFORD, Respondent, PAUL D. BARTLETT, Executor of the Estate of HERBERT F. HALL, Deceased, Appellant. No. 38930. No. 38931. Supreme Court of Missouri. Division One, September 5, 1944. Rehearing Denied, October 9, 1944.

[182 S.W.2d 625]

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. Paul A. Buzard, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Beach, Gordon & Beach, and Lathrop, Crane, Reynolds, Sawyer & Mersereau for appellant.

(1) The certificates in evidence are not insurance policies. Consequently, they fall within the general rule that gifts to take effect upon the donor's death are void unless effected in the manner provided in the Statute of Wills. Sec. 520, R.S. 1939; Ellison v. Straw, 119 Wis. 502, 97 N.W. 168; Uhlman v. New York Life Ins. Co., 17 N.E. 363; Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 102 F. (2d) 380; In re Walsh, 19 F. Supp. 567; State ex rel. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S. v. Hahn, 88 Pac. (2d) 484; State v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S., 282 N.W. 411; Hall v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 28 Pac. (2d) 875; Commonwealth v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 98 Atl. 1072; Reece v. Sec. Ben. Assn., 114 S.W. (2d) 207; Wayland v. Western Life Ins. Co., 166 Mo. App. 22, 148 S.W. 626; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Statham, 93 U.S. 24, 23 L. Ed. 789; Helvering v. Le Gierse, 312 U.S. 531, 61 S. Ct. 646, 85 L. Ed. 906; Helvering v. Tyler, 111 F. (2d) 422; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Keller's Estate, 113 F. (2d) 833; In re Thornton's Estate, 186 Minn. 351, 243 N.W. 389; Moskowitz v. Davis, 68 F. (2d) 818; Secs. 5852, 5853, 5854, 5855, R.S. 1939; Commonwealth v. Beisel, 388 Pa. 519, 13 Atl. (2d) 419. (2) Mr. Hall did not make a completed gift of the proceeds of the certificates to Rainey and Sandford during his lifetime. On the contrary, they were to take only upon his death. Trautz v. Lemp, 329 Mo. 58, 46 S.W. (2d) 135; Cartall v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 348 Mo. 372, 153 S.W. (2d) 370; Martin v. First Natl. Bank, 227 S.W. 656; Burchett v. Fink, 139 Mo. App. 381, 123 S.W. 74; Stevenson v. Earl, 65 N.J. Eq. 721, 55 Atl. 1091; Morristown Trust Co. v. Capstick, 90 N.J. Eq. 22, 106 Atl. 391; Grady v. Sheehan, 256 Pa. 377, 100 Atl. 950; In re Brown's Estate, 22 Atl. (2d) 821; Geisel v. Burg, 283 Mich. 73, 276 N.W. 905; McDermott v. Bennett, 5 N.Y.S. (2d) 4, 253 App. Div. 580; Neal v. Neal, 106 S.W. (2d) 595; McDonough v. Portland Savs. Bank, 1 Atl. (2d) 768; McCartin v. Devine, 17 Atl. (2d) 864; McLeon v. Hennepin County Savs. Bank, 145 Minn. 299, 176 N.W. 987; Peters, Admr. v. Peters, 6 S.W. (2d) 699; 84 A.L.R. 189; 66 A.L.R. 881; 103 A.L.R. 1117. (3) In the absence of a valuable consideration moving from Sandford and Miss Rainey to Mr. Hall sufficient in law to support the alleged oral contract claimed by them, the attempted gift of the proceeds of the two certificates, by other than testamentary means, is void. Vrooman v. Turner, 69 N.Y. 280, 25 Am. Rep. 195; Howsman v. Trenton Water Co., 119 Mo. 304; St. Louis v. Wright Contracting Co., 101 S.W. 6; Forgey v. Macon Tel. Co., 237 S.W. 792; Uhrich v. Globe Surety Co. of Kansas City, 166 S.W. 845; Binswanger v. Employees' Liability Assur. Corp., 28 S.W. (2d) 448; Federal Surety Co. v. Minneapolis Steel & Machinery Co., 17 F. (2d) 242; Kramer v. Gardner, 116 N.W. 925; Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Martin, 173 S.W. 307; Decker v. Fowler, 92 Pac. (2d) 254; McCarthy v. Pieret, 24 N.E. (2d) 102; Sliney v. Cormier, 139 Atl. 665; Tensfield v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., 272 Pac. 404; McDonough v. Portlant Savs. Bank, 1 Atl. (2d) 768; Appeal of Garland, 136 Atl. 459; Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Ellis, 125 F. (2d) 127; In re Koss's Estate, 150 Atl. 360; Stevenson v. Earl, 65 N.J. Eq. 721, 55 Atl. 1091; Sever v. Ransom, 120 N.E. 639; Smith v. Simons, 61 Pac. (2d) 584; Sec. 1014, R.S. 1939; Cartall v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 348 Mo. 372, 153 S.W. (2d) 370.

R.R. Brewster, John G. Madden, R.R. Brewster, Jr., James E. Burke, Ralph M. Russell, Brewster, Brewster & Brewster and Madden, Freeman, Madden & Burke for respondents.

(1) The respondents are the only claimants for the funds in question properly before this court, appellant having abandoned the only claims thereto upon which the judgments of interpleader were entered; respondents' motions for judgments upon the pleadings should have been sustained. Lafayette-South Side Bank v. Siefert, 18 S.W. (2d) 572; 7 Mo. Law Review 203; Carter v. Dilley, 167 Mo. 564; Palmer v. Marshall, 24 S.W. (2d) 229; Brown v. Wilson, 348 Mo. 658, 155 S.W. (2d) 176. (2) The policies in question are insurance contracts and respondents, as the designated beneficiaries, are entitled to the proceeds thereof. R.S. 1939, secs. 5800, 5855; Logan v. Fidelity Casualty Co., 146 Mo. 114; 1 May on Insurance (4 Ed.), p. 3; Sigal v. Hartford Trust Co., 177 Atl. 742; State ex rel. v. Lucas, 153 S.W. (2d) 10; Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner, 102 F. (2d) 380; Helvering v. Le Gierse, 312 U.S. 531, 85 L. Ed. 996; Bodine v. Commissioner, 103 F. (2d) 982; Commissioner v. Meyer, 139 F. (2d) 256; Estate of Cora C. Reynolds, 45 B.T.A. 44. (3) Whether the policies in question are construed as insurance policies is immaterial, since in any event they are third party beneficiary contracts valid as against the objection that they constitute an attempted testamentary disposition of property, particularly in view of the settled rules in this jurisdicton (a) that contracts for the benefit of a third party are entirely valid and may be enforced by such beneficiary, and (b) that no consideration passing from the beneficiary to the promisee is necessary to sustain the validity of such third party contracts. Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Ellis, 125 F. (2d) 127; 138 A.L.R. 1484; Restatement of the Law, Contracts, sec. 133; Benton v. Smith, 171 S.W. (2d) 767; Geel's Estate, 143 S.W. (2d) 327; Lafayette-South Side Bank v. Siefert, 18 S.W. (2d) 572; Warren v. United States, 68 Ct. Cls. 634; Decker v. Fowler, 92 Pac. (2d) 254; Society of Missionary Catechists v. Bradley, 44 N.E. (2d) 209; Rundberg's Will, 29 N.Y.S. (2d) 375; Bergman v. Ornbaun, 92 Pac. (2d) 654; Ireland v. Lester, 298 N.W. 488, 298 Mich. 154; Lewis' Estate, 98 Pac. (2d) 654; McKinnon v. McKinnon, 56 Fed. 409; Ketcham v. Miller, 37 S.W. (2d) 635; Crow v. Kaupp, 50 S.W...