Southern Lumber Co. v. Pearce, 6483.
Decision Date | 01 June 1932 |
Docket Number | No. 6483.,6483. |
Citation | 59 F.2d 50 |
Parties | SOUTHERN LUMBER CO. v. PEARCE. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Oliver D. Street, of Birmingham, Ala., and S. T. Wright, of Fayette, Ala., for appellant.
Jim C. Smith, of Birmingham, Ala., for appellee.
Before BRYAN, SIBLEY, and HUTCHESON, Circuit Judges.
Mrs. Pearce, beneficiary in a life insurance policy for $5,000, brought this suit in a state court of Alabama against the New York Life Insurance Company to recover thereon. The cause removed to the federal court; the company, by way of interpleader in accordance with section 10386 of the statutes of Alabama (Code 1923), paid the amount sued for into court, suggesting that without collusion with it the Southern Lumber Company was a claimant for said sum. Mrs. Pearce and the lumber company each filing claim to the amount, one as beneficiary, the other as assignee, the case was tried to a jury. At the conclusion of the evidence, each moving for an instructed verdict, the court granted the motion of appellee. From the verdict and judgment against it, the lumber company appeals.
There was no conflict in the evidence. Plaintiff offered the policy insuring the life of Ernest J. Pearce, and dated April 3, 1929, agreeing "to pay to Leola E., wife of the insured, the beneficiary, $5,000." It contained the following provisions pertinent to this suit.
It was admitted that there was no indorsement on the policy limiting or abolishing the right to change the beneficiary, or restricting any right or privilege of the insured, and that no change of beneficiary or assignment of the policy was ever noted on it or filed with the company.
Defendant proved by one Alexander, a collector for the Southern Lumber Company, that in the month of June, 1930, Mr. Pearce, being then indebted to that company in the amount of around $10,000, and his account being in bad shape, had, in response to his request to put up some more security for his debt, told him he would put up a $5,000 insurance policy, and "I told him that would be all right; mail it to the office"; that some time later Mr. Pearce did place the policy in an envelope and mail it to the lumber company, in whose possession it has ever since been. After the receipt of the policy and until Pearce's death by his own hand, the lumber company carried on an insistent but fruitless campaign by correspondence with Pearce and with the insurance company, to procure from Pearce an assignment of the policy, for, though many letters were written and forms for his execution sent to him, he neither executed nor agreed to execute any of them.
On August 14 the company wrote Pearce as follows:
Some time later, the date not shown in the record, Pearce wrote the company:
On September 29 the company wrote Pearce as follows:
— enclosing with the letter a form of assignment:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. Rochelle
...plainly is not a transfer of any present interest. It is merely a promise to transfer the interest in the future. Southern Lumber Company v. Pearce, 5 Cir., 59 F.2d 50; Carey v. Chase, 187 Iowa 1239, 175 N.W. 60. Hence no assignment was executed. This being the case, the United States had n......
- Kansas City Bridge Co. v. Alabama State Bridge Corp.