Mayher v. Manhattan Life Ins. Co.

• Citation: 27 S.W. 124
• Parties: MAYHER v. MANHATTAN LIFE INS. CO. (WILLIAMS et al., Interveners).
• Decision Date: 21 June 1894
• Court: Supreme Court of Texas

27 S.W. 124

MAYHER v. MANHATTAN LIFE INS. CO. (WILLIAMS et al., Interveners).

Supreme Court of Texas.

June 21, 1894.

Error from court of civil appeals of fifth supreme judicial district.

Action by Julia A. Mayher against the Manhattan Life Insurance Company on a life insurance policy issued on the life of Edward Williams, in which Rebecca Williams and Tyler Williams intervened. The court of civil appeals, without any written opinion, reversed a judgment for defendant, and entered a judgment in favor of the interveners, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

The following is the opinion of the court of civil appeals (Rainey, J.):

"Conclusions of Fact.

"On October 24, 1889, appellee issued its policy on the life of Edward Williams for $5,000, payable to Julia Mayher, a child 10 years of age. She was in no way related to Williams, nor did she have any reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit or advantage from a continuation of his life. He was very fond of her, and often expressed a desire to do something for her. Williams made the contract with the appellee's agent for the insurance; but, being unable to make the necessary arrangements to pay the premium, — $333, — John W. Mayher, the father of said Julia Mayher, after being urged by Williams and the insurance agent, was induced to pay the premium. There was no fraud or deceit practiced by Williams or Mayher, and appellee's agent had full knowledge of matters connected with the procuring of said insurance. Julia Mayher had no insurable interest in the life of said Williams. Williams died February 20, 1890. Rebecca Williams and Tyler Williams, interveners, are the children and only heirs of said Williams, both of whom are adults, and not supported by or dependent upon said Williams for support, nor did they contribute anything towards his support.

"Conclusions of Law.

"`A person has undoubtedly an insurance interest in his own life, and that interest supports a policy, whether he makes the loss payable to himself, his executors, or his assigns, or to a nominee or appointee named in the policy. Nor is a policy obtained by one on his own life for the benefit of another, which latter advances the premium, necessarily void. The question is whether the form was adopted as a cover for a mere wager.' Julia Mayher had no insurable interest in the life of Edward Williams, being in no manner related to him; nor did she have a reasonable expectation of pecuniary advantage or benefit from the continuance of his life. Williams had an insurable interest in his own life, and his designating said Julia Mayher as the beneficiary did not make the policy of insurance void. The want of an insurable interest in Julia Mayher cannot be urged by the company as a defense to defeat a recovery on the policy; but it is collectible, and the proceeds are to go to the use and benefit of his legal heirs. Insurance Co. v. Williams, 79 Tex. 633, 15 S. W. 478; Insurance Co. v. Hazlewood, 75 Tex. 351, 12 S. W. 621; Investment Co. v. Baum, 29 Ind. 236; Langdon v. Insurance Co., 14 Fed. 272. Though the premium was paid by the father of Julia Mayher, it was paid at the request of Williams, which was known to the agent of the insurance company; and as there was no intention on the part of the parties to deceive or overreach the company, nor did the transaction constitute a wager, the payment of the policy, therefore, cannot be avoided because the premium was thus paid. The court below erred in not rendering judgment against said insurance company for the amount of the policy. As Julia Mayher had no insurable interest in the life of said Williams, and as the heirs of said Williams had intervened, judgment should have been for Julia Mayher for $333, the premium paid, with legal interest from October 24, 1889, and in favor of interveners for the balance of the amount of said policy, with legal interest thereon. Therefore the judgment of the court below is reversed, and here rendered for appellants as above indicated.

"Additional Conclusions of Fact.

"At the request of the attorney for Julia Mayher, appellant, we find the following additional conclusions of fact, viz.: The application for said insurance specified that Julia Mayher was the `daughter of J. W. Mayher, of Texarkana, Arkansas,' and that said beneficiary was `a friend.' The application was signed only by the said Edward Williams, and was witnessed by Munzesheimer, one of the insurance company's agents. The policy sued on contained the following stipulations: `The Manhattan Life Insurance Company of New York, in consideration for this policy and the statements and covenants therein contained, which are a part of this contract, and the annual premium of three hundred and thirty-three 00/100 dollars, to be paid in advance to the company, at its office in the city of New...