New York Life Ins. Co. v. Miller

• Decision Date: 22 May 1900
• Citation: 56 S.W. 975
• Parties: NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. v. MILLER. f1 SUTTON et al. v. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

56 S.W. 975

NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. v. MILLER. f1

SUTTON et al. v. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 22, 1900

Appeals from circuit court, Montgomery county.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by Ida B. Miller and others against the New York Life Insurance Company on a policy of insurance. Judgment for plaintiff Ida B. Miller, and the New York Life Insurance Company and Sutton & Smith, who claim a lien upon the policy appeal. Reversed.

Humphrey & Davie, Ed. C. O'Rear, and R. H. Winn, for appellant New York Life Ins. Co. Tyler & Apperson, for appellants Sutton &amp Smith. R. A. Chiles, for appellee Ida B. Miller.

WHITE J.

On November 7, 1883, the New York Life Insurance Company issued its policy of insurance on the life of John O. Miller payable in case of death to his wife, Ida B. Miller. The plan of insurance under which the policy was issued was the 15-year tontine investment plan. This plan of policy provided, if Miller should survive the 15-year period, the proceeds or value should nevertheless be paid, the provision of the policy being: "This policy is issued on the tontine investment policy plan, the particulars of which are as follows: That the tontine period of this policy shall be completed on the 7th day of November, 1898; that no dividend shall be allowed or paid on this policy, unless the person whose life is hereby insured shall survive until the completion of its tontine dividend period, and unless this policy shall then be in force; that surplus or profits derived from such policies on the tontine investment policy plan as shall not be in force at the date of the completion of their respective tontine dividend periods shall be apportioned equitably among such policies of the same class as shall complete their tontine dividend periods." The premiums on this policy were paid semiannually in advance and the last payment due was paid in May, 1898. In June, 1898, the actuary of the company submitted a statement in writing showing what would be the value of the policy at the end of the period in November. This statement showed that its value in cash on the date, November 7, 1898, would be $1,000, the face value, and the additional sum of $300.95 of accumulated dividends under the tontine plan. There were several other values placed as of that date, based upon annuities, etc., unnecessary to be considered here. In August, 1898, being after the payment of the last semiannual premium, yet before the time fixed as the expiration of the tontine period, Miller died. This action is to collect of the insurance company the amount of the policy. The company acknowledged its liability, and tendered the sum of $1,000, the fixed value of the policy, in full satisfaction of the policy; but this was refused, the beneficiaries claiming the additional dividend of $300.95, as shown by the statement of the actuary. On the hearing of this branch of the case, the circuit court adjudged that the beneficiary was entitled under the policy to the sum of $1,300.95. From that judgment the insurance company appeals.

The other branch of the case arises out of the controversy between Ida B. Miller, wife of John O. Miller, and the beneficiary named in the policy, and appellants Sutton &amp Smith, who claim the policy or an interest therein by reason of an assignment of same for value, as collateral security to secure the payment of certain debts due them by John O. Miller. The facts as to the assignment appear to be that on December 6, 1894, John O. and Blanche, otherwise Ida B., Miller, assigned this policy absolutely to one George W. Baird. On December 21, 1894, Baird assigned the policy absolutely to Sutton & Smith. On this same day, December 21, 1894, Miller and wife entered into a written agreement with Sutton & Smith, which recites that on that day Sutton & Smith had loaned to John O. Miller the sum of $336, on the following conditions: "Said Miller owes Sutton & Smith a debt in the Traders' Deposit Bank of about $500, said debt being J. O. Miller's note, with Sutton & Smith as security, for the...