Mut. Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Wayne Savings Bank

• Decision Date: 12 January 1888
• Citation: 68 Mich. 116,35 N.W. 853
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: MUTUAL BENEFIT LIFE INS. CO. v. WAYNE SAV. BANK et al.

35 N.W. 853

68 Mich. 116

MUTUAL BENEFIT LIFE INS. CO. v. WAYNE SAV. BANK et al.

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 12, 1888

Appeal from circuit court, Wayne county, in chancery.

Bill of interpleader, filed by the Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company to determine, as between the Wayne County Savings Bank and Alice H. Curtis, the right to a sum of money due on two policies of insurance on the life of George E. Curtis. A decree was rendered in favor of the bank. Alice H. Curtis appeals.

Duffield & Duffield, for appellant.

Moore &amp Canfield, for appellee.

SHERWOOD J.

Both defendants in this case claim the amount of moneys due upon two policies of insurance issued by the complainant upon the life of George E. Curtis, who was the husband of Alice H Curtis, one of the defendants. On November 28, 1864, the company issued the first policy, in the sum of $3,000, to Mrs. Curtis, by the terms of which it was made payable to her if she survived her husband, and, if not, then to be paid to their children, or to their guardian. December 31, 1866, the company issued the second policy, in the sum of $5,000, to George E. Curtis, payable to the assured, his executors, administrators, or assigns; and, the eighteenth day of May, 1876, he assigned this policy over to his wife. Both of these policies, it is claimed by the complainant and the other defendant, were duly assigned by George E. Curtis and his wife to the defendant bank,--the $5,000 policy, on the twenty-third day of July, 1884; and the $3,000 policy, on the twenty-ninth day of the same month. These assignments Mrs. Curtis claims, are void. On the thirteenth day of August, it appears that George E. Curtis and his wife executed to the bank a promissory note for the sum of $7,936.20, payable on or before six months after date. This note recites that the said policies of insurance were deposited with the bank as security for the payment of said note. This note Mrs. Curtis also claims to be void as against her. George E. Curtis died on the twenty-third day of September, 1885. The bank, as assignee of the policies as above stated, on the third day of November, 1885, presented proofs of loss; and on the sixth day of January, 1886, Mrs Curtis presented to the company the usual proofs in such cases, showing the death of her husband; and each party claims the right to receive the amount due on the policies, assured to the proper owner. The insurance company makes no contest against the claim of the party legally entitled to the money, and, for the purpose of determining the question, it has caused to be filed the bill in this case in the circuit court for the county of Wayne in chancery, and, under the order of the court, has deposited the amount due upon the policies with the register thereof, for the legal owner of the same. To the complainant's bill setting forth the above facts, and that complainant cannot ascertain to whom it can with safety make payment, and that the bank threatens to bring suit at law to compel payment of the amount it claims under the policy, the defendants filed their several answers.

The answer of the bank sets forth the assignments of the policies, and avers, among other things, that, prior to their date, the bank had loaned George E. Curtis and Alice H, Curtis large sums of money, to secure the payment of which the assignments of said policies were made. That, subsequent to the assignments, the bank also loaned certain other moneys upon the same security; and that on or about August 13, 1884, an accounting was had between the parties, and there was then found and agreed to be due to the bank the sum of $7,936.20, for which sum Curtis and wife executed the note before referred to. That, subsequent to the giving of the note, the bank also loaned Curtis and wife on December 31, 1884, $390; on January 26, 1885, $190; on March 7, 1885, $190; and on September 26, 1885, $70,--making the entire indebtedness due to the bank, $8,776.20. That the consideration for the assignment of said insurance policies as aforesaid was money loaned by the defendant to the said George E. and Alice H. Curtis prior to and at the date of the assignment, and that the same was intended as security to the defendant for the money so loaned as aforesaid, and for any other moneys which the said defendant might thereafter loan to the said George E. Curtis and Alice H. Curtis, or either of them; and that there is now due and unpaid to this bank, for moneys by it loaned as aforesaid, the sum of $8,776.20, besides interest, as security for which this bank holds the aforesaid policies of insurance. The defendant bank further says that "this defendant has no knowledge that the said Alice H. Curtis claims that the said assignments to this defendant are void as against her, or that she is entitled to said money, and leaves complainant to its proofs in regard to said allegation. But it shows that any such claim on the part of said Alice II. Curtis is without any just foundation; that, the said insurance policies being due and payable to this defendant, this defendant insists that it has a right to collect the same, and, if necessary, to bring suit therefor against the said complainant; and that said defendant, upon information and belief, denies that the said complainant cannot safely pay over said moneys, due as aforesaid, to this defendant, or that it is in any danger of being harassed if it should make such payment."

Mrs Curtis, in her answer, admits the procuring of the policies as stated in the bill, and the assignment of the $5,000 policy by her husband to her. She avers that she "never sold or transferred the same, for value to her accruing, or knowingly parted with or assigned the legal title to the same, to any other person or party, but claims to be the sole, true, and lawful owner thereof, and of all moneys due and payable thereon." She admits the claim of complainant on the first of said policies for the amount due on the premium note, and is ready and willing to allow the same on payment to her of the balance admitted to be due thereon. And, further answering, denies that she ever made or entered into any contract or agreement with said bank on the thirteenth of August, 1884, or at any other time, or since, by which she became indebted to or chargeable with any liability to pay money to said bank or its assigns; and that she never received any money or valuable consideration from said bank in connection with any such alleged contract or contracts; and that she was never holden in any way or individually liable to any extent, to said bank. She further says that she never intended to assign her interest in said policy to the bank, for any purpose or in any manner; and if such an assignment in fact exists bearing her signature, which she does not admit, it was obtained wrongfully and fraudulently, and without any knowledge on her part that the same was attached to any instrument of assignment, or any knowledge on her part that said bank ever claimed that she was indebted to the bank, and it was therefore inoperative and void; and that the same is true with regard to the $3,000 policy. That she never had any treaty with the bank or its agents by herself or otherwise by which she assigned said policies, or either of them, to the bank, as security, or in any other manner. That by the death of her husband the last-named policy became hers absolutely, and she is the sole owner of the same, and entitled to the amount due thereon from the complainant. She, further answering, says she never, by herself or agent, borrowed or received any sum of money from the bank, and that she never gave her note to said bank. That, if said bank made loans as stated, they were to her husband alone, and on his credit; and, if he assumed to use her name and signature to the notes and assignments mentioned in the answer made by the bank, it was done without her knowledge or consent, and that she never received anything for or on account of said alleged loans; and that, if her signature was obtained to any paper held by said bank by her said husband, it was done misrepresentation and deception, and not with her assent, knowledge, or understanding of the same. The answer further proceeds as follows: "And this defendant submits and avers that said George E. Curtis, as she has since his death been advised and believes, was in the habit of indulging in various speculations in grains, stocks, and other articles on his own account, and without any knowledge or participation therein on the part of this defendant, but with full knowledge on the part of said Wayne County Savings Bank, or one or more of its officers, who furnished him the means for such operations; and, when said George E. Curtis was unsuccessful, he resorted to certain misrepresentations and deceptions to and upon this defendant to procure the signatures (if such were in fact obtained) of this defendant, in order to carry out those individual operations and schemes of his own; and that said bank consented and co-operated with him in this endeavor, well knowing that this defendant was in nowise interested in or had knowledge of his said operations. And this defendant, further answering, says that the means thus used in procuring her signature to said papers, if such were obtained, were wholly fraudulent and void; and that the notes held by said bank bearing defendant's signature, if any such there are, were all the individual debts of said George E. Curtis, and not of this defendant, who was neither personally, nor in her estate, benefited or advantaged thereby; and she is therefore in nowise chargeable therewith or holden thereon, and she asks this court so to decree. And this defendant, further answering, says that at no time during the life of said Curtis...