Ricker v. Charter Oak Life Insurance Company
| Decision Date | 24 September 1880 |
| Citation | 6 N.W. 771,27 Minn. 193 |
| Parties | Nancy J. Ricker and others v. The Charter Oak Life Insurance Company, Defendant, and Louisa Stanchfield, Intervenor |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by the intervenor, Louisa Stanchfield, from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Young, J., presiding sustaining the plaintiffs' demurrer to her complaint. The action was brought by the children of Samuel Stanchfield, by his first wife, upon the original policy of insurance mentioned in the opinion, and the intervenor, in her complaint, alleged the surrender of that policy, and the issuance of the second policy mentioned in the opinion payable to herself.
Order affirmed.
Lochren McNair & Gilfillan, for appellant.
Woods & Babcock, for respondents.
The original policy was issued upon the application of Samuel Stanchfield, the person whose life was insured, and all the premiums stipulated for were paid by him before the death of Elizabeth A. Stanchfield, who was his wife. By its terms the amount of the insurance was made payable, upon the death of the insured, to Elizabeth A. Stanchfield, his said wife, and in case of her death before his decease, the same was to be paid to his children, or to their guardian, if minors, for their use and benefit. The said Elizabeth died intestate in July, 1874, leaving surviving her said husband, the plaintiffs herein, and one Joel B. Stanchfield, who were the issue of their marriage. After this Samuel Stanchfield married the intervenor herein, by whom he had one child, Carl S. Stanchfield, both of whom are now living. On February 13, 1878, Samuel Stanchfield died. After the decease of his former wife and his marriage with the intervenor, Louisa Stanchfield, the insured surrendered the original policy, which was cancelled, and a new one was issued in its place and as a substitute therefor, bearing the same date, and containing the same terms and conditions, save that it was therein provided that it should enure "to the sole and separate use and benefit" of said intervenor, Louisa Stanchfield, his second wife. The legal effect of this surrender and change, and the competency of Samuel Stanchfield to make it without the consent of his children, are the important questions presented for adjudication in this case.
Upon the allegations and admissions in the pleadings it must be presumed that the original policy was made, and its stipulations were to be performed, in the state of Connecticut, where the defendant company was created, organized, and did its business, and hence its legal effect, and the rights and obligations of the parties under it, depend upon the laws of that state; but as no evidence appears to have been given as to what those laws were, they are to be taken as identical with the common law of this state, independent of any statute upon the subject. Upon this theory the case has been argued, and it will be considered and determined accordingly.
The general rule upon the subject, as stated by Mr. Bliss, is this: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial