Rhode v. Bank

• Decision Date: 02 December 1879
• Citation: 52 Iowa 375,3 N.W. 407
• Parties: MATILDA RHODE, APPELLANT, v. HENRY BANK, ADMINISTRATOR, AND OTHERS, INTERVENORS, APPELLEES.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

52 Iowa 375

3 N.W. 407

MATILDA RHODE, APPELLANT,

v.HENRY BANK, ADMINISTRATOR, AND OTHERS, INTERVENORS, APPELLEES.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed December 2, 1879.

Appeal from Lee circuit court.

Adelbert H. F. Rhode, deceased, at the time of his death held an insurance policy on his life in the Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company. The policy was for $1,000, payable to the assured, his executors, administrators or assigns. The plaintiff is the widow of said Rhode, and he left no children surviving him, and never had any children as the fruits of his marriage with plaintiff. The defendant Henry Bank is the administrator of the estate of said Rhode, and as such collected upon said insurance policy the sum of $992.56. The intervenors are the brothers and sisters of said Rhode, deceased. They are the next of kin, and, with plaintiff, are the only heirs at law of said deceased. The plaintiff, by this action, claims that she is entitled to the whole of the proceeds of said insurance policy. The intervenors claim that they, as brothers and sisters of the deceased, are collectively entitled to one-half of such proceeds, and that plaintiff is entitled to the other one-half. The circuit court adjudged to the plaintiff one-half, and to the brothers and sisters of the deceased one-half. Plaintiff appeals.Gilmore & Anderson, for appellant.

R. H. Sherman, for administrator.

Sprague & Gibbons, for intervenors and appellees.

ROTHROCK, J.

Section 1330 of the Code of 1851 provided that “the avails of any life insurance are not subject to the debts of the deceased, except by special contract or arrangement, but shall in other respects be disposed of like other property left by the deceased.” The same provision was contained in the Revision of 1860, § 2362. By the eighteenth section of c. 173, Acts of the Twelfth General Assembly, it was provided that “a policy of life insurance on the life of an individual, in the absence of an agreement or assignment to the contrary, shall enure to the separate use of the husband, or wife and children of said individual, independently of his or her creditors; and an endowment policy, payable to the assured on attaining a certain age, shall be exempt from liabilityfor any of his or her debts.” This provision was incorporated in the Code of 1873, § 1182. Section 2372 of the Code is also identical with section 1330 of the Code of 1851, and section 2362 of the Revision of 1860.

“It is a rule of construction that when a doubtful statute is susceptible of two constructions, one of which will give effect to the whole, and the other render inoperative a portion thereof, the former should prevail.” Rheim v. Robbins, 20 Iowa, 45. Another rule to be observed, is that two or more statutes on the same subject must be construed with reference to each other.

Applying these rules in construing these two sections, it seems to us that the wife is entitled to the whole of the insurance. We reach this conclusion upon the strength of section 1182 of the Code, which provides that the policy shall enure to the separate use of the husband, or the wife and children. This provision, as we have seen, was...