Mut. Prot. Ins. Co. v. Hamilton

• Decision Date: 31 December 1857
• Citation: Mut. Prot. Ins. Co. v. Hamilton, 37 Tenn. 269 (Tenn. 1857)
• Parties: MUTUAL PROTECTION INSURANCE COMPANY v. HAMILTON AND GORAM.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

37 Tenn. 269

MUTUAL PROTECTION INSURANCE COMPANY

v.HAMILTON AND GORAM.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

December Term, 1857.

FROM DAVIDSON.

This is a bill of interpleader, filed in the chancery court at Nashville. The facts are fully set forth in the opinion. At the November term, 1857, Chancellor Frierson rendered a decree in favor of the defendant, Goram, from which the defendant, Hamilton, appealed.

Ewing and Cooper, for the complainant and Hamilton; Meigs and F. B. Fogg, for Goram.

McKinney, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a bill of interpleader. The facts are these: On the 2d of April, 1849, a policy of insurance on the life of Thomas Hamilton, for the term of life, in the amount of $5,000, in consideration of the annual premium of $141.05, underwritten by the complainant, an incorporated company, organized on the principle of mutual assurance, was issued to said Hamilton. By the express terms of the policy, the company agree, “to, and with the assured, his executors, administrators, and assigns, well and truly to pay, or cause to be paid, the said sum insured, to the assured his executors, administrators, or assigns, within sixty days after due notice, and proof of the death of the said Thomas Hamilton.”

Shortly afterwards the assured assigned and transferred the policy, by a writing under seal, made upon the margin of the policy, in the following words:

“I hereby make over this policy of insurance on my life, to Adelaide Eliza Goram, a colored woman; and desire that, at my death, the amount, say $5,000, be paid to her. Witness my hand and seal, this 22d day of August, 1849.

Thomas Hamilton. [l. s.]”

Subsequently, on the 20th of February, 1850, this transfer was acknowledged by Hamilton, in the presence of an attesting witness, as appears by an endorsement on the face of the policy. There also appears on the face of the policy, the following written endorsement: “Pay as above. New Orleans, 12th July, 1854. Thos. Hamilton.”

Thomas Hamilton, the assured, died on the 25th of August, 1855. Shortly after his death, the defendant, as assignee of the policy, (who resides in New Orleans), presented the same to the office, and demanded payment of the insurance money. The defendant, Andrew Hamilton, who took out letters of administration on the estate of the deceased, in Davidson county, Tennessee, also set up a claim to said sum of $5,000, and demanded payment of the same from the office.

To adjust these conflicting claims, and to have it judicially determined who was entitled to the money, the company, for its own protection, brought this bill to which both claimants are parties.

The defendant Goram, states in her answer, and the statement is uncontroverted, that said policy was delivered to her by the assured, “on or about the date of said assignment, and has been ever since in her possession and custody.”

The defendant, Hamilton, as administrator, states in his answer, that the estate of the deceased will probably turn out to be insolvent, and that the sum in controversy will be required for the payment of debts. And he seeks to repel the claim of the other defendant on several grounds. Because, as is alleged, the assignment was made “without the knowledge or consent of the company,” and no notice thereof was given to the office, until after the death of the assured; and also, because, as he believes, the assignment was made without any consideration valid in law; and was, therefor, inoperative, at least as against creditors of the estate of the assured; and likewise, because he does not admit that the defendant, Goram, is a free person, so as to be capable in law, of taking any interest under the assignment. The contest in the present case, it will be observed, is alone between the personal representative, and the assignee of the assured. And, it is further to be noticed, that neither in the charter of incorporation, nor by any bylaw of the company, nor by anything on the face of the policy, is it required that notice of the assignment of the policy shall be given to the office.

The question, as to the necessity of the knowledge and assent of the underwriters, to the assignment of a policy, is very different with reference to fire policies from life and marine policies. The assent of the insurer to the assignment, in order to give it validity as against the office, in the case of a fire policy, is generally admitted; and notice of the assignment must therefore be given, or the assignee will not be entitled to demand the insurance money. The reason of this requirement in fire policies is obvious. In such cases, the personal character of the assured, for integrity and prudence, is a most important consideration. In the language of the books, there is infused into the contract of fire insurance, something of the nature of a choice of persons. The insurer might be quite willing to underwrite a policy for one person, but not for another of different character and habits. The known reputation of the assured might be an ample guaranty that he would not secretly destroy his own property, with a view to recover the insurance money, while that of the assignee might furnish no such assurance.

But no such reason exists in the case of an insurance on the life of an individual, nor in the case of a marine policy. And in the latter cases, the assent of the insurer to the assignment of the policy, or notice of such assignment, is not indispensible, in order to entitle the assignee of the policy to recover the money from the insurer. See Angell on Insurance, sec. 199, 200. 3 Md. 341, 353.

We are of opinion therefore, that as between the insurer, and the assignee of a life policy, notice of the assignment is not required, to complete the right of the latter, to receive the insurance money from the former.

Upon principle, as it seems to us, the right of the assignee must be held to be perfect in a case like the present, by force of the assignment alone. This must be so, if we are correct in the assumption that by the transfer he becomes instantly invested with the legal interest in the policy, for if he takes nothing more than a mere equitable interest under the assignment, it will perhaps inevitably follow that the debt still continued subject to the order and disposition of the assured, so far at least, as after his death, a payment to his personal representative, without notice of the assignment, would protect the insurer from paying the money a second time to the assignee.

That the assured has an assignable interest, and that a life policy is assignable, admits of no question. This is so, first upon the general principle of law, applicable to this subject. See Ang. on Ins., sec. 325. Secondly, it is so by the express stipulation of the contract. By the terms of this policy, the contract is with “the assured, his personal representatives and assigns;” and...