Pomeroy v. the Manhattan Life Ins. Co..

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: WALKER
• Citation: Pomeroy v. the Manhattan Life Ins. Co.., 40 Ill. 398, 1866 WL 4501 (Ill. 1866)
• Decision Date: 30 April 1866
• Parties: MARION POMEROY, impleaded, ect.,v.THE MANHATTAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.

40 Ill. 398

1866 WL 4501 (Ill.)

MARION POMEROY, impleaded, ect.,

v.THE MANHATTAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April Term, 1866.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Chicago.

On the 12th day of January, 1857, the Manhattan Life Insurance company, a corporation existing by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, and having its principal office in that State, insured the life of Samuel B. Pomeroy for $5,000, for the benefit of his wife, Marion Pomeroy. Pomeroy and his wife at the time resided in this State, and the application was made in Mrs. Pomeroy's name to the local agent of the company, residing in Chicago. The application was forwarded to the home office in New York, and the policy was returned, containing a condition that it should not become binding until it was countersigned by T. L. Miller, of Chicago, and the advance premium paid. This condition was complied with, the policy was countersigned in Chicago, the premium paid, and the policy delivered to Mrs. Pomeroy at that place. Afterward, and while Mrs. Pomeroy was still a married woman, she executed an assignment of $600 of the policy to Samuel Howe, to secure a debt owing to Howe from her husband. That assignment was as follows:

“In consideration of the sum of one dollar to me in hand paid by Samuel Howe, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, I, Mrs. Marion Pomeroy, wife of Samuel B. Pomeroy, do hereby sell, assign, transfer and set over unto the said Samuel Howe, six hundred dollars of the amount of the policy of insurance on the life of Samuel B. Pomeroy, issued by the Manhattan Life Insurance Company, and numbered 4,312.”

“Dated Sycamore, September 1st, 1862.”

In 1864, Samuel B. Pomeroy died, and soon after, the company applied to Mrs. Pomeroy to allow the sum of $600 of the money due her on the policy, to be paid to Howe, which she refused, contending that the whole amount should be paid to herself. Thereupon the insurance company filed a bill in chancery, asking that Mrs. Pomeroy and Howe should interplead, and the rights of the parties be adjusted. The court below decreed that the sum of $600 of the money due on the policy, should be paid to Howe. From that decree Mrs. Pomeroy appeals to this court, and now insists that the contract of insurance was made in the State of New York, and must be governed by the laws of that State, which, she alleges, do not authorize the assignment of such a contract, either in part or in whole; and further, being a married woman, she had no power to make such an assignment.

Messrs. HURD, BOOTH & KREAMER, for the appellant.

Mr. GEORGE GARDNER, for the appellee. Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE WALKER delivered the opinion of the Court:

It is insisted, that this policy of insurance could not be assigned under the laws of New York. Also that the contract was entered into in that State, and notwithstanding the litigation is in the courts of this State the laws of that State must govern the rights of the parties to the policy. To ascertain whether the laws of New York must govern the question of the right to assign the policy, it will be proper first to determine whether the policy was made in New York. The evidence shows, that the applicant, the person whose life was insured, and the agent of the company to whom the application was made, all resided in Chicago. The application was also made in that city, and was forwarded to New York by the secretary of the company. On this application a policy was returned containing a provision, that it should not be binding until it...