Pietri v. Seguenot

• Decision Date: 07 October 1902
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Parties: PIETRI et al. v. SEGUENOT.

69 S.W. 1055

96 Mo. A. 258

PIETRI et al. v. SEGUENOT.

Court of Appeals at St. Louis, Missouri.

October 7, 1902.

EXEMPTIONS — LIFE INSURANCE — CONSTRUCTION OF POLICY.

1. An insurance company operating on the assessment plan issued a policy, at the request of the insured, payable to his "executors or administrators." The policy was a substitute for a former one, and was issued at the request of the insured, who asked to have it made payable to his "estate." On the death of the insured, the company paid the fund into court. Held, that the next of kin did not take the fund, under section 7908, Rev. St. 1899, discharged of the debts of the deceased.

2. Section 7908, Rev. St. Mo. 1899, does not prevent an insured from making a policy payable first to his creditors, and the residue to his next of kin.

3. A policy declared that it should be construed according to the laws of the state of New York, but it was delivered in Missouri, where the insured at the time was a resident. Held, that the law of Missouri governs the construction of the policy.

4. The circumstances surrounding the execution of a document may be considered in ascertaining the intent of the parties therein.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; Franklin Ferris, Judge.

Action by Francis Antony Pietri and others against Louis Seguenot, administrator of Paul Pietri. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Ittner & Kirby, for appellants. B. Greensfelder, for respondent.

BARCLAY, J.

We adopt the clear and succinct statement for the appellants, which gives an outline of the main features of the case: This suit was brought by the brothers and sisters, as the next of kin, of Paul Pietri, against his administrator, to recover the proceeds of the policy of insurance upon his life issued by the Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association of New York. Paul Pietri in 1882 insured his life in said company in favor of his wife. In 1894 the wife died, leaving no children. Thereafter Pietri, in 1895, applied to the company for a surrender of his policy, and the issuance in lieu thereof of a new policy in favor of "myself," stating in his application as the reason for the desired change, "My wife died, and I have no children, so I would like the policy payable to my estate." The new policy was issued January 30, 1895, payable to his "executors or administrators." He paid all premiums up to his death in December, 1896. Defendant, as principal administrator of Pietri's estate, received from the insurance company the proceeds of the policy. At the date of the policy and since then said insurance association was doing an insurance business conducted upon the assessment plan, as contemplated by article 3, c. 89, Rev. St. Mo. 1889, being article 3, c. 119, Rev. St. Mo. 1899. Plaintiffs contend that although defendant, being the administrator named in the policy, had a legal right to collect the insurance, yet he received it as trustee for the next of kin of the insured; creditors being prohibited participation by Rev. St. Mo. 1899, § 7908, which was then in force as section 5867, Rev. St. Mo. 1889. That section is as follows: "Sec. 7908. The money or other benefit, charity, relief or aid to be paid, provided or rendered by any corporation authorized to do business under this article, shall not be liable to attachment or other process and shall not be seized, taken, appropriated or applied to any legal or equitable process, nor by operation of law, to pay any debt or liability of a policy or certificate holder or any beneficiary named in a policy or certificate." To the foregoing it may be well to add a few further facts, not disputed: The case was tried in the circuit court upon an agreed statement, which is somewhat elaborate. It need not be set forth at large. The insured was a resident of St. Louis, Mo., at the time of his death, which occurred, however, while he was sojourning at New Orleans, La. An administration upon his estate was instituted in Louisiana, in the course of which the administrator brought a suit in a federal court there on the policy whose construction is in question now. But the insurance company responded by a bill of interpleader against the Louisiana administrator and the defendant, who had been appointed administrator of the estate in Missouri and claimed the fund, to enjoin the prosecution of their rival claims. The proceedings ensuing resulted in a decree in the United States circuit court for the Eastern district of Louisiana enjoining the Louisiana administrator from prosecuting any further suits against the insurance company for the proceeds of the policy, which had been paid into court, and directing him to pay to the Missouri administrator the fund represented by the policy, amounting to about $3,000, after deducting the local expenses. Plaintiffs had not been parties to the decree in Louisiana. They brought this suit against the Missouri administrator, claiming the entire proceeds of the policy, on grounds which will appear. The agreed statement of facts furthermore discloses that the expenses of the last illness of deceased and of the administration in Louisiana were discharged by the proceedings in Louisiana, and that the claims of a number of creditors, including some in Missouri, which had been exhibited against the estate in Louisiana, were not paid there. Presumably, they are unsatisfied. The case at bar is founded upon a petition stating the relationship of plaintiffs to the deceased as his heirs, the facts showing the insurance by the policy in question, made payable "to the executors or administrators" of the deceased, and claiming that the contract is subject to the law of the state of New York, according to its terms, and that by said law it is provided that "the money or other benefit, charity, relief or aid to be paid, provided or rendered by any such corporation, association or society, shall be exempt from execution, and shall not be liable to be seized, taken or appropriated by any legal or equitable process to pay any debt or liability of a member, or the widow of a deceased member of said corporation, designated as the beneficiary thereof." The petition, after showing that the fund has reached the possession of the defendant as administrator of the estate of deceased, charges that it was so received as trustee for the use and benefit of the plaintiffs, as the real beneficiaries, under the terms of the policy and of the statute law relating thereto, and that the estate of the deceased has no beneficial interest in the fund. The petition then charges that defendant has refused to pay over the fund to the plaintiffs after due demand, wherefore the latter pray "that the defendant may be decreed to hold said fund in trust for the plaintiffs, and may be ordered, as administrator as aforesaid, to pay the same over to plaintiffs, together with the costs of this suit." The answer gives a circumstantial...