Richardson v. White

• Decision Date: 23 October 1896
• Citation: 44 N.E. 1072,167 Mass. 58
• Parties: RICHARDSON v. WHITE et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

167 Mass. 58

44 N.E. 1072

RICHARDSON v. WHITE et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Hampden.

October 23, 1896

This was a bill in equity, brought by William H Richardson against Luther White, as administrator of the estate of Edson Clark, to restrain the defendant from collecting the proceeds of a life insurance policy issued on the life of said Clark by the New York Life Insurance Company. The insurance company filed an answer offering to pay the proceeds to whomsoever the court might say the policy belonged. The policy in question was taken out by said Clark in accordance with an agreement between him and Richardson to secure Richardson for money which he had advanced to Clark. The policy contained a clause providing: "Any assignment of this policy must be made in duplicate, and both copies must be sent to the home office for acknowledgment one of them to be retained by the company. Under no circumstance will the company assume any responsibility for the validity of the assignment." Upon the face of the policy Clark wrote: "Payable, in case of death, to Wm. H. Richardson as his interest may appear." This indorsement was not dated, nor was any notice thereof sent to the company. On several occasions Clark exhibited the policy to Richardson, and told him that it was fixed as he desired; but the policy was never delivered to Richardson, and did not come into his possession until after Clark's death.

COUNSEL

Luther White, pro se.

Gillett & McClench, for appellee.

OPINION

HOLMES J.

The plaintiff advanced money to the defendant's intestate Edson Clark, on the strength of the latter's promising to take out, and taking out, this policy as security for the advances. Clark wrote into the policy on its face, "Payable in case of death to Wm. H. Richardson, as his interest may appear," and several times exhibited the policy to the plaintiff. These facts are sufficient to give the plaintiff the security which he understood that he got. Bank v. Benson, 24 Pick. 204, 210; Stearns v. Insurance Co., 124 Mass. 61, 62. It turns out that the plaintiff's claim will exhaust the policy. But if this were otherwise there is no longer any doubt that an assignment of part of a fund is good in equity, as between the assignee and assignor; that the insistence on the necessity of a delivery of the document of title in Palmer v. Merrill, 6 Cush. 282, 286, is a mistake, so far as equity is concerned, if the...