Lewis v. Lewis' Administrator

• Decision Date: 06 May 1930
• Citation: 234 Ky. 227
• Court: Supreme Court of Kentucky
• Parties: Lewis v. Lewis' Administrator et al.

234 Ky. 227

Lewis v.Lewis' Administrator et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky. (Chancery Branch, Second Division).

Decided May 6, 1930.

1. Insurance. — Divorce decree ordering restoration of property either spouse received from other during marriage held forfeiture of wife's interest in husband's life insurance (Ky. Stats., sec. 2121; Civil Code of Practice, sec. 425.)

2. Marriage. — Evidence held insufficient to establish remarriage between divorced husband and wife so as to entitle wife to proceeds of life insurance.

3.Executors and Administrators.— Suit by deceased husband's administrator against divorced wife to recover proceeds of life insurance held cognizable in equity, in view of relief sought and order in divorce suit restoring property (Civil Code of Practice, sec. 425.)

Divorced wife contended that court of equity was without jurisdiction because administrator had adequate remedy at law, in that he could have sued insurance companies on policy contracts, and recovered judgments, if entitled to proceeds and because issue of remarriage between divorced husband and wife was question of fact for jury.Administrator sought injunctive relief through order requiring divorced wife to turn over all money she might have collected under policies and execute all releases necessary, and divorced wife sought similar order, and prayed that she be adjudged to have been lawful wife of deceased at time of his death.

4. Trial.— Granting prayer for issue out of chancery is matter resting in discretion of chancellor.

5. Trial.— Acceptance of verdict on issue out of chancery is discretionary with chancellor.

6. Insurance.— Fact that divorced wife named as beneficiary in life policies was living with husband at his death held not to entitle wife to benefits of insurance under evidence.

Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court

JOHN ROSE for appellant.

BRUCE & BULLITT for appellees.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY COMMISSIONER STANLEY.

Affirming.

"During the summer of 1927, a startling discovery was made in the marriage license and registry bureau of the Circuit court clerk's office in Jeffersonville, Indiana, just across the Ohio river from the city of Louisville.The records of that office showed that on June 24, 1927, by authority of a license issued on that day, a marriage ceremony was performed by a justice of the peace, whereby a woman was married to a man who (as is otherwise shown) had been dead for two and a half months when the marriage took place.The solution of this mystery is involved in the decision of this case."

Thus begins the opinion of the Honorable Lafon Allen, chancellor, from whose judgment this appeal is prosecuted.He determined that the record referred to was of a false marriage ceremony, and further that there was no marriage between the parties, the appellant, Lula Lewis, and Ezra Lewis, as she undertook to establish.The opinion so fairly presents the evidence on the primary issue of fact that we shall follow it closely, although limitations of space compel its abbreviation.

Ezra Lewis, who died on April 10, 1927, had about $5,000 in life insurance, the proceeds of which constitute the subject-matter of this litigation.It is a contest between the administrator of his estate and Lula Lewis who insists that she was married to Ezra Lewis for the third time on March 21, 1927, or about three weeks before he died.When the policies were issued, Lula Lewis was the insured's wife, and was designated as the beneficiary.Subsequently, on February 27, 1926, she was divorced, the decree ordering a restoration of the property each party had received one from the other, or "may have obtained directly or indirectly from or through the other during marriage in consideration or by reason thereof."This constituted a forfeiture or release of all interest in the insurance on her husband's life.This can hardly be questioned.Section 2121, Statutes;Section 425, Civil Code of Practice; Sea, Adm'r v. Conrad, 155 Ky. 51, 159 S.W. 622, 47 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1074, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 318;Schauberger v. Moerl's Adm'r, 168 Ky. 368, 182 S.W. 198, Ann. Cas. 1917C, 265;Prudential Insurance Company v. Orr's Adm'r, 174 Ky. 831, 192 S.W. 825.

We again quote from the chancellor's opinion:

"The story of the relations between Ezra Lewis and Lula Lewis falls naturally into two chapters, the first dealing with events up to March 21, 1927, the date of the disputed marriage, and the second with events occurring on and after that date.As to the first chapter, there is little dispute and no serious doubt as to what transpired.But the second chapter is full of obscurity and contains two conflicting stories, so that we have three narratives; first, the undisputed story of what took place up to March 21, 1927; second, Mrs. Lewis' story of what took place after that time; and, third, the Administrator's version of these later events."

The parties were first married in Jeffersonville, Ind., on April 3, 1920.This union lasted for a little more than four years; the wife on June 27, 1924, filing a suit for divorce.During the latter part of that period, early in 1924, Mrs. Lewis became acquainted with one J.B. Poole, who plays a conspicuous part in this drama, and who, in connection with the mystery of the post mortem marriage of Ezra Lewis, is frequently referred to as "the hatchet-faced man."Poole was then rooming with another young man named Shipley.About this time Mrs. Lewis separated from her husband.An intimacy grew up between these three persons and another young woman by the name of Ollie Wright, who it appears was the particular friend of Shipley and an old acquaintance of Poole.The two women roomed together for a time.This situation developed before the filing of the suit for divorce by Mrs. Lewis, at the trial of which she testified to extreme cruelty on her husband's part over a period of three years or more, during which he used physical violence on several occasions and repeatedly threatened her life.

A divorce was granted Mrs. Lewis on October 25, 1924.A little more than four months later, on March 6, 1925, she remarried her former husband.They went to live at the home of her sister, Mrs. Crowe, where Poole was then living.Four months after this second marriage, on July 8, 1925, they again separated.Lewis left the Crowe house, but Mrs. Lewis continued there for about a year, during all of which time Poole lived in the same house.Their friendship ripened, and the intimacy grew to such an extent that during the year and a half following this second separation Mrs. Lewis and Poole went about a great deal together in the evenings, visiting various roadhouses and other resorts in the vicinity of Louisville.During the summer of 1926 Poole and his former roommate, Shipley, together with Mrs. Lewis and her former roommate, Ollie Wright, made an excursion to Niagara Falls, going and returning together.

Meanwhile Mrs. Lewis, on August 26, 1925, filed her second suit for divorce, in which she alleged that her husband had contracted and concealed from her a loathsome disease, to wit, syphilis.A divorce having been denied upon this ground because of the previous divorce obtained, she then amended her petition, and alleged that her husband was living in adultery with another woman.The second divorce was granted on this ground on February 27, 1926.Subsequent developments adduced in this record, as the chancellor says, make the testimony in the divorce action less reliable, to state it conservatively, than it appeared at the time.He observes that "they suggest that Mrs. Lewis and her friends, who are not strangers to the courts, were not very fastidious as to the means employed to procure a successful result in litigation in which they were interested."

One of the effects of the disease with which Lewis was afflicted is a swelling of the legs and feet, and it is shown that during February and March, 1927, he was unable to work, and had serious difficulty in getting about at all.He was then living at the Railroad Y.M.C.A., where on March 11, 1927, Mrs. Lewis visited him.On that visit she became quite interested in his insurance.Two days after this visit Mrs. Lewis had him removed to the rooms occupied by herself and her sister.

A review of the first act of this drama is thus given by Judge Allen:

"The first chapter of the story, thus concluded, covers seven years of the lives of this couple, during which there were two marriages between them and two divorces occurring within a period of sixteen months; that is to say, they were divorced, remarried and divorced again in the period from October, 1924, to February, 1926.During this period Mrs. Lewis had publicly charged her husband, first with extreme cruelty and violence, including threats against her life; second, with contracting a venereal disease; and, third, with adultery.She appears to have borne up under these misfortunes with great fortitude so much so that her natural liveliness and love of pleasure were not impaired, but found an outlet in the round of gayety hinted at above.It is impossible to read this portion of Mrs. Lewis' history without concluding that she is a woman who takes life easily and finds her pleasure without great regard to the rules of conventional morality.And her career, both as principal and as a witness in matrimonial causes, suggests a certain laxity which tends to encourage suspicion as to the accuracy of her version of the events which constitute the second chapter of this story."

The sister to whose rooms the deceased had been taken was living apart from her husband, and during the period that Lewis was there, on late Saturday night, March 19th, she was arrested on a warrant sworn out by her husband, charging her with adultery.Her trial took place on the following Monday, March 21st, and the day of that trial opens the second act of the drama.

The following narrative is given in the opinion as to the occurrences on...