Ohio State Life Ins. Co. v. Barron

• Citation: 274 Mich. 22,263 N.W. 786
• Decision Date: 10 December 1935
• Docket Number: No. 57.,57.
• Parties: OHIO STATE LIFE INS. CO. v. BARRON et al.
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan

274 Mich. 22

263 N.W. 786

OHIO STATE LIFE INS. CO.

v.BARRON et al.

No. 57.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Dec. 10, 1935.

Bill of interpleader by the Ohio State Life Insurance Company against Alice B. Barron, administratrix of the estate of Laura Ella Sneyd, deceased, and Sudie J. Green, administratrix of the estate of Charles B. Sneyd, deceased. From a decree for the last-named administratrix, the first-named administratrix appeals.

Decree set aside and rendered.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lenawee County, in Chancery; G. Arthur Rathbun, Judge.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

Bourns & Helme, of Adrian, for appellant Alice B. Barron.

C. L. Peterson, of Columbus, Ohio, for appellee Ohio State Life Ins. Co.

Clark & Bean, of Adrian, for appellee Sudie J. Green.

NORTH, Justice.

Mrs. Laura Ella Sneyd was killed by her husband, Charles B. Sneyd, December 5, 1933. Immediately after committing the homicide, Sneyd took his own life. Each of these parties had been married previous to their marriage to each other in October, 1930. Mrs. Sneyd was survived by four children of her former marriage, and Mr. Sneyd was survived by three children of his former marriage. They are also survived by one child born of their marriage. At the time of her death Mrs. Sneyd carried life insurance in the amount of $1,000. Her husband was the beneficiary. The insurance company paid the money into court and filed a bill of interpleader. The contest is whether the insurance shall be paid to the estate of Charles B. Sneyd or to the estate of Laura Ella Sneyd. In behalf of his estate, it is claimed that Charles B. Sneyd was insane at the time he took the life of his wife, and that therefore the homicide does not bar his taking under the insurance policy. But the representative of the estate of Laura Ella Sneyd denies the alleged insanity and asserts that, because, of the uxoricide, the insurance should be paid to the Laura Ella Sneyd estate. The circuit judge found the alleged insanity established and entered a decree accordingly.

‘Proof that the assignee of a policy of life insurance caused the death of the assured by felonious means is sufficient to defeat a recovery on the policy.’ Syllabus, New York Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Armstrong, 117 U.S. 591, 6 S.Ct. 877, 29 L.Ed. 997.

‘In Slocum v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 245 Mass. 565, 139 N.E. 816, 818, 27 A.L.R. 1517, 1521, it was held that a beneficiary, a husband, could not collect upon a policy of insurance on the life of his wife, whom he had murdered. The court said: ‘The same principle of public policy which precludes him from claiming directly under the insurance contract equally precludes him from claiming under the statute of descent and distribution.’ Many authorities are cited to sustain this holding.' Garwols v. Bankers Trust Co., 251 Mich. 420, 431, 232 N.W. 239, 242.

‘Where an insane beneficiary in a life policy kills the assured under such circumstances as would cause the killing to be murder if the beneficiary were sane, such killing does not cause a forfeiture of the policy, nor bar his right of recovery for the insurance money.’ Holdom v. Ancient Order of United Workmen, 159 Ill. 619, 43 N.E. 772, 774.

Decision herein is controlled by a single issue of fact, i. e., Was Charles B. Sneyd insane at the time of the homicide? The case was tried at length in the circuit court. Twenty-five witnesses testified. From the record it appears that Charles B. Sneyd at the time of the tragedy was 48 years of age. At times he suffered from extremely severe pains in the head. This condition caused him to say and do things indicating a lack of sanity. It seemed to result in a discharge from the ears by which he would be relieved. In the later months of his life he drank moonshine whisky and frequently became intoxicated. He was a man of high temper. He wrongfully accused his wife of unfaithfulness and threatened her with bodily harm, causing her to live in fear of him for months immediately preceding the killing. During this period they lived apart from each other, and for some time prior to her death she would not permit him to enter her house to see her or the children unless some other person was present. Sneyd became suspicious of his relatives and friends, claiming they were all against him. He threatened bodily harm to his own brother, to his son, Walter, and to another man who was a friend and employee. Notwithstanding such abnormal conduct, he operated a poolroom and more recently his small farm in the manner of a normal man except possibly for his exhibitions of bad temper and drunkenness.

The testimony discloses some insanity in the Sneyd family, but each of the two instances of insanity was accompanied by explanatory circumstances or conditions. It may be conceded that Charles B....