Rawson & Co. v. Jones
| Decision Date | 31 July 1874 |
| Citation | 52 Ga. 458 |
| Parties | Rawson & Company, plaintiffs in error. v. James S. Jones,administrator, defendant in error. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Insurance. Distribution. Administrators and executors. Before Judge James Johnson. Muscogee Superior Court. May Term, 1874.
Rawson & Company brought complaint against James S. Jones, as administrator upon the estate of Robert C. Jones, deceased, for $782 16, besides interest, alleged to be due on a judgment against said defendant. The defendant pleaded no assets and plene administravit preter. The case was submitted upon the following agreed statement of facts:
On the 9th of June, 1868, Robert C Jones insured his own life for $5,000 00 in the Brooklyn Life Insurance Company, and received a policy by which said company agreed to pay the aforesaid amount "to his heirs, executors, administrators or assigns, within sixty days after due notice and proof of the death, " etc. At the date of the policy Jones was about twenty-four years of age. He lived and died without wife or children. He was about twenty-seven years of age when he died. He left his heirs-at-law, a brother, to-wit: James S. Jones, and three sisters, to wit, C. E. Turner, M. F. Tooke, *and R. E. Perryman, all of whom were older than himself. He had been raised and educated by his brother and sisters, and had no estate when he took the policy. At his death, he had paid up in premiums $324 36. The defendant, as administrator, has paid out for funeral and other expenses, $678 75. The Brooklyn Life Insurance Company had paid the defendant the said sum of $5,000 00 in full of said policy, for which he gave a receipt signed as administrator of Robert C. Jones, the said company refusing to take a receipt from the heirs-at-law.
If the $5,000 00 are assets in his hands to pay debts of theintestate, then he has assets to be administered sufficient to pay plaintiff\'s claim; if not, then he has no assets of the intestate. The heirs-at-law of the intestate insist that said sum of $5,000 belongs to them, and they claim the same from defendant and have demanded it of him. The plaintiffs obtained a judgment against said intestate at the date and for the amount set out in the declaration.
The court charged the jury that the policy was payable to the heirs-at-law, to-wit: the brothers and sisters of the said Robert C. Jones, and that the amount of $5,000 00 paid the defendant on said policy, was not assets in his hands to pay the debts of the intestate.
The jury found for the defendant. The plaintiffs excepted to the aforsaid charge, and now assign error thereon.
Peabody & Brannon, for plaintiffs in error.
Ingram & Crawford, for defendant.
Robert C. Jones...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burdett v. Burdett
...Cyc. pp. 890, 896; Pinneo v. Goodspeed, 120 Ill. 524; Douglass v. Parker, 84 Me. 522; Bliss on Life Insurance (2d Ed.) sec. 328; Rawson v. Jones, 52 Ga. 458; Burroughs v. Life Ins. Co., 97 Mass. 359; McIntyre v. Costello, 47 Hun. (N. Y.) 289; 14 Cyc. 901, sec. b; Hewett v. Cox, 55 Ark. 234;......
-
Box v. Lanier
...by him in his lifetime." In support of this context the author cites the following cases which more or less go to sustain it: Rawson v. Jones, 52 Ga. 458; Swift v. Passenger, etc., Ass'n, 96 Ill. 309; Pilcher v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 33 La. Ann. 322; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Flack, 3 Md. 341......
-
Perry v. Tweedy
...to be construed as next of kin according to the statute of distributions. In the opinion the case was distinguished from that of Rawson v. Jones, 52 Ga. 458, where insured took out a policy payable to his ""heirs, executors, administrators or assigns," he having never been married. In that ......
-
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Fidelity Nat. Bank & T. Co.
...to the heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns of the insured, the proceeds go to his legal representatives. See, also, Rawson & Co. v. Jones, 52 Ga. 458, and Loos v. Ins. Co., In the case at bar there is little evidence, exclusive of the policy itself, to show the intent of the insure......