Rylander v. Allen
Decision Date | 28 March 1906 |
Parties | RYLANDER et al. v. ALLEN. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
One has the right to procure insurance on his own life and assign the policy to another, who has no insurable interest in the life insured, provided it be not done by way of cover for a wager policy.
Error from Superior Court, Sumter County; Z. A. Littlejohn, Judge.
Action by Hattie Allen, administratrix of Thomas M. Allen, against Hattie Rylander and the Travelers' Insurance Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Reversed.
Lane & Maynard, for plaintiffs in error.
W. A Dodson, for defendant in error.
FISH C.J. (after stating the facts).
Where one has procured insurance on his own life, in good faith, is an assignment of the policy by him to one who has no insurable interest in his life valid, when the assignment is not made by way of cover for a wager policy? This exact question has never been decided by this court. There is a contrariety of judicial opinion on the subject in other jurisdictions. Civ. Code 1895, § 2114. Id. § 2116. A policy of life insurance, even before the death of the assured, is a chose in action, arising upon contract, and therefore may be assigned. Steele v. Gatlin, 115 Ga. 929, 42 S.E. 253, 59 L.R.A. 129. As will be seen, Civ. Code 1895, § 2114, limits the life that may be insured to that of the person taking out the insurance, or to that of another in the continuance of whose life he has an interest; but section 2116, in declaring that the assured may direct the money to be paid to his assignee, does not prescribe that such assignee must have an insurable interest in the life of the insured. In Union Fraternal League v. Walton, 109 Ga. 1, 34 S.E. 317, 46 L.R.A. 424, 77 Am.St.Rep. 350, Pughsly, a member of the league, procured from it a membership certificate of insurance on his own life, in which Mrs. Walton was named as beneficiary. At his own expense he kept the insurance in force. After his death, Mrs. Walton sued the league to recover the amount of the certificate. On the trial it was admitted that she had no insurable interest in the life of the insured. The sole question for adjudication was whether the certificate of insurance, being in favor of one who had no insurable interest in the life of the insured, was for that reason a wagering policy and void. It was held: In delivering the opinion for the majority of the court, Mr. Justice Little said: The learned justice then cites and comments upon many authorities which abundantly sustain the position taken by the majority of the court. It will be noted that he treats the beneficiary without insurable interest in the life of the insured and an assignee without such interest as in the same category; indeed, he seems to argue that as, under the provisions of our Code, the assured may direct the policy to be paid to an assignee who has no insurable interest in the life of the insured, it follows that the insured may insure his life for the benefit of one who has no interest in its continuance.
In Ancient Order of United Workmen v. Brown, 112 Ga. 545 37 S.E. 890, a mutual beneficiary association issued a certificate of membership on the life of Harvey, in which Miss White was named as the beneficiary. Subsequently Harvey surrendered this certificate to the order, which canceled the same, and a new certificate was issued, in which, at his direction, Mrs. Brown, who was neither related to nor in any way dependent upon him, was designated as the beneficiary; her relationship to him being stated as that of "friend." This change of the beneficiary was made by Harvey in consideration of an agreement between him and Mrs. Brown that she would take the certificate in satisfaction of four months' board; she agreeing to pay all future assessments made by the association. She received the new certificate under this agreement and paid all the future assessments made by the association upon Harvey until his death. Afterwards, in an action brought by Mrs. Brown to recover the amount due on the certificate, the order contended that as she had no insurable interest in the life of Harvey, the certificate of insurance in which she was named as beneficiary was a wagering policy and therefore void. The majority of the court held that this point was covered by the ruling made in Union Fraternal League v. Walton, 109 Ga. 1, 34 S.E. 317, 46 L.R.A. 424, 77 Am.St.Rep. 350. In the opinion delivered for the majority of the court by the writer, it was said: If, where one who has in good faith procured a policy of insurance upon his own life and kept it in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rylander v. Allen
...53 S.E. 1032125 Ga. 206RYLANDER et al.v.ALLEN.Supreme Court of Georgia.March 28, 1906. Insurance — Assignment of Life Policy — Validity. One has the right to procure insurance on his own life and assign the policy to another, who has no insurable interest in the life insured, provided it be......
- Wash. Loan & Banking Co v. Holliday, (No. 11910.)