Sealey v. United States

• Decision Date: 11 May 1934
• Docket Number: No. 5554.,5554.
• Citation: 7 F. Supp. 434
• Parties: SEALEY v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia

7 F. Supp. 434

SEALEY v. UNITED STATES.

No. 5554.

District Court, E. D. Virginia, Norfolk Division.

May 11, 1934.

Warren E. Miller, of Washington, D. C., and F. F. V. Staples, of Portsmouth, Va., for plaintiff.

Russell T. Bradford, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Norfolk, Va.

J. L. Morewitz, of Newport News, Va., for Amy Marie Sealey.

WAY, District Judge.

This proceeding was instituted by Nellie V. Sealey, widow of Arthur Lee Sealey, in her capacity as administratrix of his estate, to recover on two war risk insurance policies of $5,000 each, issued to said Sealey. The policies were in full force at the time of his death. Amy Marie Sealey, herein referred to as the "second wife," a resident of Pennsylvania, having been duly served with notice of these proceedings, pursuant to the statute (U. S. C. title 38, § 445 38 USCA § 445) "appeared specially" and moved the court to dismiss on the ground that the hustings court for the city of Portsmouth, Va., which appointed Nellie V. Sealey administratrix, was without jurisdiction so to do because, defendant alleges, Arthur Lee Sealey at the time of his death did not reside in Virginia, but was domiciled in Pennsylvania, and that the proper court of that state alone has jurisdiction to make such appointment.

It appears from the evidence that Arthur Lee Sealey was born in Warwick county, Va., July 19, 1886. He enlisted in the United States Navy January 23, 1909, in which service he remained until his death in February, 1919. For some time following his enlistment he was a member of the crew of the Georgia, which vessel had its home port at Hampton Roads, Va.

Sealey was lawfully married to plaintiff, whose name before her marriage was Nellie V. Hale, in Portsmouth, Va., November 3, 1909, in which city she has lived nearly all her life. He established a home in Portsmouth where they lived together as man and wife whenever Sealey was ashore, until some time in 1913, except that during a part of the time they lived with a brother of Sealey, at the brother's home in Warwick county, near the place of Sealey's birth.

About 1915 or 1916 Sealey was ordered to Newport, R. I., and later to Boston, Mass. Some time in 1916 he was transferred to the Kansas, the home port of which vessel was Philadelphia. He remained with the Kansas with its headquarters at Philadelphia until May, 1917, when he was ordered overseas for active duty in the World War. He was overseas continuously from May, 1917, until January 20, 1919, with the exception of a thirty days' leave, which he spent in or around Philadelphia. On January 20, 1919, he was ordered back to Philadelphia, and on the 30th of the same month he entered a United States naval hospital in Philadelphia, where he died February 3, 1919. His body was brought to Virginia and buried in a cemetery in the vicinity of Newport News, and near the home of his parents. Each wife testifies to having attended the funeral.

As already observed, Sealey, from the time he married plaintiff in 1909 until some time in 1913, when he was ordered and transferred from the Hampton Roads district, resided in Portsmouth with plaintiff when ashore, and apparently regarded Virginia as his home. After he was ordered away from the Hampton Roads district, he continued to correspond with plaintiff and visited her in Portsmouth when on leave from his vessel. A son was born of the marriage on September 25, 1915. Plaintiff testified that Sealey, after his transfer from this naval district, regularly contributed to her support.

While stationed at Philadelphia, Sealey met Amy Marie, the second wife. Impliedly at least, he held himself out to her as being unmarried and the meeting was rapidly followed by courtship and engagement to marry. Amy Marie Sealey, the second wife, testified that Sealey never mentioned or discussed with her his prior marriage and that she knew nothing of it until about three years ago, which was years after his death. He apparently had intended to divorce a wife in 1911, as appears from receipts given him by a Boston attorney named Noon, covering payments to said attorney for his fees and the cost of proposed divorce proceedings. So far as the evidence here discloses, no divorce was ever obtained and, in fact, no proceedings to that end were ever instituted, so that plaintiff remained Sealey's lawful wife until his death. As his widow she was first entitled, under the laws of Virginia, to qualify as administratrix of his estate, assuming that qualification thereon could be had in Virginia.

The evidence of the supposed marriage by Sealey to Amy Marie, the second wife, is disclosed by her testimony, in numerous letters written by him to her while he was in France, and by his having designated her as the beneficiary of his war risk insurance. In his letters to her he invariably addressed her as his wife or otherwise referred to her as occupying that status. Defendant testified that a daughter was born of this supposed marriage.

In describing their marriage, the second wife testified that it cost her and Sealey $50 to get married, because, as she expressed it, "he only had $45.00. I gave him $5.00, just a form we went through to satisfy me. What it was I could not tell but that is just what it cost, $50." In one of her letters to the Bureau, she said: "I tried two years ago to get the record of my marriage to Arthur Lee Sealey. They say there is none. When I asked Mr. Sealey about the marriage he said he had arranged it through an `ad' in a newspaper." From her testimony it appears that, although both Sealey and said Amy Marie were living in Philadelphia at the time of their supposed marriage, he was not content to have the ceremony performed there, but, at his suggestion, the two journeyed to Freehold, N. J., some sixty miles away for that purpose. There an alleged ceremony was performed by a person who held himself out as a justice of peace. No certificate or any written evidence of this supposed marriage was ever secured by the "second wife." She seems to have intrusted all these matters to deceased, who, doubtless, in the dilemma of having two wives at one and the same time, and keeping each in ignorance of the existence of the other, discussed the subject as seldom, as briefly, and as vaguely as possible.

Sealey, as permitted by law, applied for and was granted two war risk insurance policies aggregating the sum of $10,000, designating Amy Marie Sealey, the second wife, as the sole beneficiary. Upon her application to the government following his death, she was held to be entitled to the insurance, and installments were regularly paid to her from February 4, 1919, to July 3, 1931, to the aggregate of $8,567.50. The Bureau, having for the first time learned of Sealey's prior marriage to plaintiff, Nellie V. Sealey, discontinued payments to defendant....