Murphy v. Red

Citation64 Miss. 614,1 So. 761
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
Decision Date11 April 1887
PartiesW. S. MURPHY, ADMINISTRATOR, v. E. O. RED

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Holmes County, HON. C. H. CAMPBELL Judge.

W. L Red took out a policy of insurance on his own life in the New York Life Insurance Company, payable to him or his legal representatives. After paying the premiums thereon for several years he assigned the policy, in writing, in conformity with its provisions, for value, to R. M. Murphy who had no insurable interest in the life insured. Murphy paid the premiums on the policy until Red's death, when he collected the money due on the same. After this R. M Murphy died, and W. S. Murphy was appointed administrator of his estate. Mrs. E. O. Red, the widow and sole heir and distributee of W. L. Red, deceased, brought this action against W. S. Murphy, administrator, to recover the amount collected by R. M. Murphy on the policy of insurance, claiming that the assignment to him by her husband was not valid. The judgment in the court below was in favor of the plaintiff, Mrs. Red. The defendant, W. S. Murphy, administrator, appealed.

Judgment reversed.

Calhoon & Green, for the appellant.

It does not require an insurable interest in the assignee to support the assignment, even against the insurance company. St. John v. Am. L. Ins. Co., 2 Duer 419; s. c., 13 N.Y. 31; 22 Barb. 9; 20 N.Y. 32; Conn. Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Schaeffer, 94 U.S. 461; Williams v. Carson, 2 Tenn. Ch. Rep. 269; Olmstead v. Keyes, 85 N.Y. 593.

A person has an insurable interest in his own life and may make the loss payable to his personal representative or a stranger who has no interest. Campbell v. New Eng. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 98 Mass. 381; Provident L. Ins. Co. v. Baum, 29 Ind. 236. Or assign to any one. Cunningham v. Smith, 7 Pa. St. 450.

"For myself, I can see no good reason why a man having an insurable interest may not insure it, and present the policy as a gift to a friend, and if such agreement be made to give at the very time of the contract, why may not the policy be made at once in the name of the donee, the whole transaction being bona fide--no fraud on the company being intended," Per Sharswood, J., in Am. Life and H. Ins. Co. v. Rabershaw, 26 Pa. St. 191, and the case and reasons were affirmed.

See for a clear exposition Clark v. Allen, 11 R. I. 441. See 52 Am. Rep. 142. In Trenton Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 4 Zab. N. J. 582, it was upon a full review of the authorities held that an insurable interest in the life was not necessary at common law, and that such interest was required by the statute of 14 George, which was not in force in New Jersey.

This case is cited with seeming approval in Maury v. Home Ins. Co., 9 R. I. 354. In Bussinger v. Bank, vol. 30 Northwestern Reporter (1886), p. 293, upon a review of the authorities, it is held that where the insurance is upon the life of the insured himself he may lawfully assign the same to any person, whether he has an insurable interest or not, citing a large number of cases, including those cited herein and others.

M. Green, for the appellant, argued the case orally.

Hooker & Wilson, for the appellee.

The vital question raised by the record is, what was the effect of the assignment by Red to Murphy of the policy?

It cannot be denied but that there is a great conflict of authorities upon the point raised in the record.

The cases seem to divide themselves in three classes.

One class (a small class) holding that an insurance can be effected in favor of a mere stranger to the insured, one who has no insurable interest in his life.

A second class holding that a policy issued in favor of one having no insurable interest in the life of the insured is void, but that if the policy is valid in its inception it is assignable to a stranger.

The third class holding that a policy issued to a stranger is not permissible, and that the same reasons and rules which forbid the issuance of a policy to a stranger forbid its assignment.

May on Insurance, § 398, approves the doctrine announced in the authorities cited below. He says that the same reasons which prevent a stranger acquiring a policy of insurance upon a life in which he has no interest by the direct issuance to him of such a policy also forbid him to acquire such policy by purchase.

We refer the court to the following authorities: 112 Pa. 251; 104 Pa. 77; 104 U.S. 775; 81 Ky. 368; 18 Kan. 93; 76 Ala. 183; 53 Ind. 380; May on Ins., §§ 74, 75; 41 Ind. 116; 101 Mass. 564; 15 Wall. 643; 46 Mich. 473; 10 La. An. 809.

If this contract of assignment was a wager contract then the attempt to convey it by Red was void, and it inured to the benefit of his wife (there being no children).

OPINION

ARNOLD, J.

It is shown that the husband of appellee before his death assigned the policy on his life for a valuable consideration to appellant's intestate. It is not suggested that there was any purpose in procuring the policy to evade or circumvent the laws against wagering policies, but it is affirmed on one side and denied on the other that the fact that the assignee had no insurable interest in the life insured vitiated the assignment, and the case will be considered in that aspect.

It is generally agreed that mere wager policies--that is to say, policies in which the insured party has no interest whatever in the matter insured, but only an interest in its loss or destruction--are void as against public policy. Conn. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Schaefer, 94 U.S. 457, 24 L.Ed. 251. And it must be admitted that there are decisions and dicta to the effect that it is unlawful for the holder of a life insurance policy on his own life to sell or assign the same under any circumstances to one who has no insurable interest in the life insured. Courts, which deny the validity of such sale or assignment, manifest great sensibility in regard to the danger which such transaction if sanctioned would cause to human life. They say that all the objections against issuing a policy directly to one on the life of another, in whose life the former has no insurable interest, exist against his holding such policy by mere purchase and assignment from another, that in either case the holder of such policy is interested in the death rather than in the life of the insured, and that the speculative or gambling element is the same, and the temptation to shorten the life of the insured is the same in the one case as in the other.

The weight of reason and authority, we think, is against this view. There is an obvious difference between the two transactions. It is contrary to public policy for a person to insure a life in which he has no insurable interest and to derive benefit or advantage therefrom. This is condemned as gaming or wagering on the chances of human life, and as such is prohibited by law. But it is lawful for one to insure his own life, and after he has done so the policy becomes his own if payable as in this case, and there is no good reason why he may not sell or dispose of it as he may of any other chose in action if the policy was valid in its inception. Clark v. Allen, 11 R.I. 439; St. John v. Am. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 13 N.Y. 31; Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Allen, 138 Mass. 24; Valton v. Assurance Co., 20 N.Y. 32; Olmsted v. Keyes, 85 N.Y. 593; Ashley v. Ashley, 3 Sim. 194; Currier v. Continental Life Ins. Co., 52 Am. Rep. 134, note; Bursinger v. Bank, etc., 30 N.W. 290.

A man may have the best of reasons for wishing to dispose of the policy on his life. The exigencies of business or absolute necessity may require him to do so. He may have paid large sums in premiums and afterward became unable to pay more, and if he is not allowed to sell or assign on the best terms he can make, the policy may be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • Carpenter v. Knapp
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • April 10, 1897
    ...... Keyes, 85 N.Y. 593; Mutual Life Ins. Co., v. Allen, 138 Mass. 24 (52 Am. Rep. 245); Eckel v. Renner, 41 Ohio St. 232; Martin v. Stubbings, . 126 Ill. 387; Fitzpatrick v. Hartford L. & A. Ins. Co., 56 Conn. 116; Clark v. Allen, 11 R. I. 439. (23 Am. Rep. 496); Murphy v. Red, 64 Miss. 614 (60. Am. Rep. 68); Rittler v. Smith, 70 Md. 261, 2 L. R. A. 844; Souder v. Home Friendly Soc., 72 Md. 511;. Bursinger v. Bank of Watertown, 67 Wis. 75 (58 Am. Rep. 848), and other cases. See also Johnson v. Van. Epps, 110 Ill. 551; Lamont v. Grand Lodge I. L. of ......
  • Gordon v. Ware Nat. Bank
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • August 22, 1904
    ......411, 7 Am.St.Rep. 288;. Succession of Hearing, 26 La.Ann. 326, 327; Clark v. Allen, 11 R.I. 439, 443, 23 Am.Rep. 496; Strike v. Wisconsin, etc., Ins. Co., 95 Wis. 583, 70 N.W. 819,. 820; Clement v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 101 Tenn. 22, 46. S.W. 561, 564, 42 L.R.A. 247, 70 Am.St.Rep. 650; Murphy. v. Red, 64 Miss. 614, 1 So. 761, 762, 763, 60 Am.Rep. 68; Rittler v. Smith (Md.) 16 A. 890, 892, 893;. Souder v. Society (Md.) 20 A. 137, 138. The. provision of the bankruptcy law of 1898 that an insurance. policy held by a bankrupt shall pass to his trustee as assets. [132 F. 448] . of ......
  • Farmers' & Traders' Bank of Shenandoah v. Johnson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • October 28, 1902
    ......Association (Mass.) 172. Mass. 498, 53 N.E. 129); Curtiss v. Insurance Co.,. 90 Cal. 245 (27 P. 211, 25 Am. St. Rep. 114); Fitzpatrick. v. Insurance Co., 56 Conn. 116 (13 A. 673, 17 A. 411, 7. Am. St. Rep. 288); Rittler v. Smith, 70 Md. 261 (16. A. 890, 2 L.R.A. 844); Murphy v. Red, 64 Miss. 614. (1 So. 761, 60 Am. St. Rep. 68); Belknap v. Johnston, 114 Iowa 265, 86 N.W. 267; Brown v. Mansur, 64 N.H. 39 (5 A. 768); Carpenter v. Knapp, 101 Iowa 712, 70 N.W. 764; Olmsted v. Keyes, 85 N.Y. 593; Clark v. Allen, 11 R.I. 439. (23 Am. St. Rep. 496); Shuman v. Supreme ......
  • Locke v. Bowman
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • November 12, 1912
    ...Home Friendly Soc., 72 Md. 511; Clogg v. McDaniel, 89 Neb. 416; Ins. Co. v. Allen, 138 Mass. 24; Dixon v. Ins. Co., 168 Mass. 48; Murphy v. Red, 64 Miss. 614; Johnson v. Van Epps, 14 Ill.App. 201; v. Thornton, 88 Ala. 241; Olmstead v. Keyes, 85 N.Y. 598; Steinbach v. Diepenbrock, 158 N.Y. 2......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT