Meyers v. Schumann

• Decision Date: 15 June 1896
• Citation: 64 N.J.E. 414,34 A. 1066
• Parties: MEYERS v. SCHUMANN.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

34 A. 1066

64 N.J.E. 414

MEYERS

v. SCHUMANN.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

June 15, 1896.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from court of chancery; Pitney, Vice Chancellor.

Action by Christine Meyers against Kate Schumann. From a decree for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Charles A. Baake and John J. Crandall, for appellant.

Clarence L. Cole, for respondent.

MAGIE, J. The contest at the final hearing in the court of chancery was between Christine Meyers, the appellant, who was the complainant below, and Kate Schumann, the respondent, who was one of the defendants below. The dispute related to the right of the respective parties to the sum of $2,000, which was claimed by each, and which had been paid into court, in pursuance of leave granted by an order in the cause, by the Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, which was the other defendant below. The society paid that sum as the amount due upon a policy of insurance issued by it upon the life of George Meyers, who died November 25, 1894. The order permitted the payment into court for the purpose of having the rights of the two claimants there litigated and determined.

Some preliminary questions had been raised in the court of chancery respecting the jurisdiction of that court over the case made by the bill, and respecting the proper practice in paying money into court under such circumstances. They were disposed of upon the opinion of Vice Chancellor Green, which is reported in 31 Atl. 460. There was no appeal from the orders made therein, and those questions have not been presented or considered on this appeal. After the payment of the money into court, the cause proceeded between Mrs. Meyers and Mrs. Schumann as if they had been ordered to interplead and litigate their respective claims. It was brought to hearing and decided upon that issue, and this appeal must be treated as requiring a review of that decision only.

The claim of Mrs. Meyers, as shown by her bill, was by virtue of an assignment in writing to her of the said policy of life insurance, which assignment was made by George Meyers, and dated November 10, 1894; the policy being payable to his executors, administrators, or assigns. The policy itself was not delivered to her, being then in the possession of Mrs. Schumann. The claim of Mrs. Schumann, as shown by her answer, rested upon an assignment in writing to her of the same policy made by George Meyers, and dated May 18, 1888, accompanied with delivery of the policy to her. The cause was brought to final hearing before Vice Chancellor Pitney, who advised a decree dismissing Mrs. Meyers' bill, with costs, and directing the money in court to be paid to Mrs. Schumann. Mrs. Meyers' appeal questions the propriety of that decree.

Upon the trial it appeared that Mrs. Schumann had no such relations with George Meyers as would give her what is called an "insurable interest" in his life. By her testimony it appeared that Meyers had paid...