New York Life Ins. Co. v. Wright

• Decision Date: 13 May 1935
• Docket Number: 18328.
• Citation: 88 S.W.2d 403,229 Mo.App. 950
• Parties: NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE CO., PLAINTIFF, v. JOHN WRIGHT ET AL., RESPONDENTS, GERTRUDE WRIGHT, APPELLANT
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

88 S.W.2d 403

229 Mo.App. 950

NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE CO., PLAINTIFF, v. JOHN WRIGHT ET AL., RESPONDENTS, GERTRUDE WRIGHT, APPELLANT

No. 18328

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas City

May 13, 1935

On rehearing December 2, 1935.

Rehearing Denied 229 Mo.App. 950 at 962.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Boone County; A. W. Walker, Judge.

Bill of interpleader by the New York Life Insurance Company against John Wright, George W. Hulett, and Gertrude Wright. From the judgment, Gertrude Wright appeals.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Wm. H Sapp and W. W. Dalton for respondents, John W. Wright and George W. Hulett.

Clark Boggs, Peterson & Becker for appellant, Gertrude Wright.

OPINION

BLAND, J.

This is a proceeding in equity to determine the ownership of the proceeds of a life insurance policy issued by the plaintiff New York Life Insurance Company, insuring the life of Ray W Wright. Said Wright died on September 3, 1933. The policy was for $ 4000. Prior to August 30, 1933, the policy was payable as follows: To John W. Wright, Father, $ 1500, George W. Hulett, a business partner, $ 650 and the balance to the wife of the insured, Gertrude Wright. The policy reserved to the insured the right to change the beneficiaries. After August 30, 1933, upon the written request of the insured of that date, the policy was made payable as follows: To John W. Wright, $ 500 and the balance to Gertrude Wright.

It appears that $ 839.85 had been borrowed upon the policy, leaving a balance of insurance of $ 3208.09, which was payable upon the death of the insured. After that event plaintiff changed the beneficiaries in the policy in accordance with the request of the deceased made on August 30, 1933. Thereafter, in accordance with the change in the beneficiaries, Gertrude Wright, demanded of the plaintiff the proceeds of the policy, after the payment to John W. Wright of $ 500 due him. John W. Wright and George W. Hulett claimed that the change of the beneficiaries was void and demanded that plaintiff settle in accordance with the terms of the policy as it existed prior to the change. Those claims resulted in the plaintiff bringing this proceeding in the Circuit Court of Boone County by the filing of a bill of interpleader asking that the respective parties interplead for the amount payable under the policy. Plaintiff paid the money into court and was discharged. The court required the parties claiming under the policy to interplead.

The plea of George W. Hulett and John W. Wright set up that the request for the change of beneficiaries executed on August 30, 1933, was null and void because, at that time, the insured was of unsound mind and was unduly influenced to execute the application for the change of beneficiaries by his wife, Gertrude Wright. By her interplea Gertrude Wright claimed the right to that part of the proceeds of the policy given to her by the change of the beneficiaries resulting from the request of August 30, 1933. The court in rendering its decree filed a "memorandum of decision" in which it is stated that the evidence of unsound mind "is inconclusive for it appears that decedent was irrational at times and other times not." However, the court found that the change of beneficiaries was procured through the exercise of undue influence on the part of Gertrude Wright over her husband and rendered judgment accordingly. The interpleader, Gertrude Wright, has appealed.

The evidence discloses that during the latter part of June, 1933, insured, who for sometime had been suffering from arteriosclerosis, heart trouble, Bright's disease, uraemia and high blood pressure, became worse and was confined in a Columbia hospital, in which city he resided, for a few days and was then removed to Barnes Hospital in St. Louis, entering there on July 18, 1933. The following day he had a stroke of paralysis and was in a comatose condition for several days. Upon examining insured in the hospital the physicians there arrived at the conclusion that insured's condition was extremely serious and that his death was only a matter of a few days. He had a very bad pulse, his respiration was poor and there were other grave symptoms indicating that he was near dissolution. This lasted three or four weeks. After the expiration of that time his condition was somewhat improved but about a week or ten days before his death he took a change for the worse.

According to the evidence of the interpleaders, Wright and Hulett, at times insured's conversation was disconnected, his mind wandered, he was strapped in bed and at other times he was irrational. One time he imagined he had bought land and rice fields and saw a big river with machines crossing and miring in it. One witness for said interpleaders, testified that "he never realized he was in the hospital, he was always in a barn or stable;" that while appearing to read the newspaper he held it upside down or sideways. However, this witness testified: "There were a few times that he didn't recognize us--when we would speak to him--but he never could have a connected conversation." At times his conversation would be rambling. He would doze off to sleep while holding a conversation. One time he thought he was taking an automobile journey to see a friend but was unable to get there on account of bad roads. There was also other testimony of irrational acts of a similar character. However, a careful examination of the testimony of witnesses for Wright and Hulett, interpleaders, discloses that there were many times during which insured was rational during his confinement in the Barnes Hospital.

Said interpleaders placed upon the stand four physicians, none of whom saw insured in the Barnes Hospital, but one of whom had treated him before he went there, and each of these physicians testified in answer to a hypothetical question propounded to them, based upon hospital records concerning insured, that insured was insane during all of the time that he was in the Barnes Hospital. Some of these medical experts had examined the hospital records. One said that he did not examine the "whole record" "minutely;" another that he examined the record "rather briefly only;" another, "I glanced over them." However, the hypothetical question propounded to them was based on only a part of the hospital records and wholly ignored the daily record or chart made of the patient and did not submit the condition of the patient from August 11 to September 3, 1933, but merely that the patient showed some improvement from August 11 to August 25. No information whatever was submitted from August 25 to September 3. It is claimed by the applicant that the court erred in admitting the evidence of the experts but we need not pass upon this question for the reasons hereinafter to be stated.

There were seven lay witnesses who testified for said interpleaders, all of whom stated that, in their opinion, insured was insane while in the Barnes Hospital. One of them was the interpleader, John W. Wright, two sons of said Wright, one daughter, one son-in-law, one daughter-in-law and one who was not related. Only three of these witnesses saw insured on the date that the application for the change of beneficiaries was signed. The evidence shows that it was signed by the insured shortly after lunch on August 30, 1933. The three witnesses for said interpleaders who testified relative to what they observed about insured on August 30, were John W. Wright, Fulton Wright and Hattie Shulter. The last testified that she saw insured on the evening of August 30 after the evening meal; that he was almost asleep; that "He didn't seem to be interested in us or in anything. We spoke to him and he spoke, but never said anything more to me. I didn't carry on any more conversation, and I wasn't sure the doctors had not given him medicine to put him to sleep, as they did every night." . . . "Q. How long were you there? A. I went out and talked to those friends about staying, then back again. Q. And did he recognize you? A. Just when I went in. Q. How long were you there? A. Well, I went in and stayed about twenty minutes and then out to talk to those folks and then back for about thirty-five or forty minutes. Q. Had he been given his medicine to go to sleep? A. No. They didn't give it to him when he was so low that he didn't have to have it. At least, the doctors didn't tell me they did, but I didn't see any medicine administered to him at all that night."

John W. Wright testified that he was there the night of the day that the request for the change of beneficiaries was signed and that insured "wasn't in very good condition. . . . He was in a bad fix." Asked if insured knew him he stated: "Well, I cannot be positive. It seemed he did recognize me for a second or two."

Fulton J. Wright, a son of the interpleader, John W. Wright testified that he saw insured on the night of the day that the request for the change of beneficiaries was signed; that he was there about seven o'clock and stayed about fifteen minutes; that there was no one with him and that no nurse or doctor was present. He testified: "Q. What did he say on this particular date? A. Well, he said, 'Hell, do you want it all? Ain't you satisfied'? and mentioned about these bills. Q. And that is all he said on that date. What was his physical condition, the best you could judge, at that time? A. Real bad." . . . "Q. When you went in what did you say to him? A. I asked him how he felt. Q. What did he say? A. 'Who are you? Have you got some more papers?' Q. Said what? A. 'Have you got some more papers?' Q. What did you tell him when he asked who you were? A. I told him I didn't have no papers and 'don't you know me?' and he says, 'No,' I said. 'This is "Baldy"--don't you remember me?' . . . 'Oh,...