Stepson v. Brand

• Decision Date: 07 April 1952
• Docket Number: No. 38278,38278
• Citation: 213 Miss. 826,58 So.2d 18,33 A.L.R.2d 267
• Parties: , 33 A.L.R.2d 267 STEPSON v. BRAND.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Page 18

58 So.2d 18

213 Miss. 826, 33 A.L.R.2d 267

STEPSON v. BRAND.

No. 38278.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

April 7, 1952.

L. B. Melvin, Sr., Melvin, Melvin, Melvin, all of Laurel, for appellant.

Matthew Harper, Jr., Jackson, for appellee.

HOLMES, Justice.

This suit is a contest between the appellant and the appellee over life insurance in the amount of $3,000 on the life of Arthur Stepson, deceased. The insurance was procured by the said Arthur Stepson by virtue of his employment by the Masonite Corporation, and arose under group insurance policies issued to said corporation by the Aetna Life Insurance Company and certificates of insurance issued thereunder to the said Arthur Stepson as an employee of said corporation.

The appellant and the appellee having each asserted a claim to the proceeds of the insurance upon the death of Arthur Stepson, the Aetna Life Insurance Company filed its bill of interpleader in the Chancery Court of the Second Judicial District of Jones County, admitting its liability for the amount of the insurance and tendering the same into court and praying that the claimants be summoned into court for the determination of their respective claims.

The claimants answered, asserting their respective claims, and by consent of all of the parties, the Aetna Life Insurance Company having paid into the registry of the court the amount of the insurance, a decree was entered discharging the company of all liability and directing that the cause proceed to trial on the claims of the respective claimants.

The appellant asserted claim to the insurance by virtue of a gift from the insured. The appellee claimed the insurance as the named beneficiary in the insurance certificates at the time of the death of the insured.

The trial of the cause resulted in a decree in favor of the appellee, Rosie Lee Stepson, and the appellant, Emma M. Stepson, prosecutes this appeal.

The undisputed evidence is as follows: Emma and Arthur were married on June 4, 1918 and were never divorced. On October 26, 1944, Arthur became an employee of the Masonite Corporation and so continued until his death on October 9, 1950. By virtue of his employment, he acquired life insurance in the aggregate amount of $3,000, for which certificates of insurance were issued to him pursuant to group insurance policies maintained in force by his employer. The required insurance premiums were paid by Arthur or by deductions from his wages. In the original insurance certificates, Arthur designated Emma, his wife, as the beneficiary. The right was reserved in the certificates to designate a new beneficiary on written request of the insured filed in the home office of the insurance company or at the office of the employer. As Arthur obtained the certificates of insurance he took them home and gave them to Emma, with whom he was living, telling her that he was giving them to her as a gift so that she might have something to live on after he was gone. He surrendered the manual possession of the certificates to Emma and she placed them in her trunk where they remained until after Arthur's death. In the meantime, Emma exercised complete control and dominion over the certificates and Arthur never thereafter claimed the certificates or exercised any control or dominion over the same. Arthur told the witness Sara Davis in March, 1950, that he had given his wife all of his insurance and that she would be in good shape if anything happened to him. He told the witness Leroy Barrett about two years prior to the trial of this cause that he had given all of his insurance to Emma. The witness Maudie Lee Barrett was in the home of Emma and Arthur on an afternoon in 1944 and saw Arthur give one of the 'policies' to Emma and heard him tell Emma that it was hers and that he should happen to pass first she would have the 'policies' to live on. The witness Laura Johnson talked to Arthur during the first part of 1950 and heard him say that if he was killed Emma would be better if he was killed Emma would be better off; that she would have nothing if he lived but if he didn't, she would have something. The witness Rufus Blanton was in the home of Emma and Arthur in about the year 1944 and saw Arthur bring some of the 'policies' and give them to Emma, saying that he was giving them to her. The witness Jo Ella Michles saw Arthur in the hospital about a year before he died, where he was suffering from an injury which he received at the Masonite Corporation. He told her that if he had died his wife would be 'sitting big'; that he had given Emma his 'policies for a gift.'

On June 18, 1949, Rosie Lee entered into a ceremonial marriage with Arthur. On June 7, 1950, Arthur went to the office of the Masonite Corporation and told Mrs. Rosemary Shoan, the secretary of the Masonite Corporation and in charge of the insurance records of the corporation, that he wanted to change the beneficiary in his 'policies' to Rosie Lee as his wife. He did not have the insurance policies or certificates with him. Mrs. Shoan prepared the written request for the change of beneficiary and Arthur signed it and she issued and delivered to Arthur an insurance certificate designating Rosie Lee as the beneficiary and he brought the certificate to Rosie Lee and told her that he wanted her to have it, that it was hers.

Emma knew nothing of the pretented marriage between Rosie Lee and Arthur, nor of the attempted change in the beneficiary, until after the death of Arthur.

Emma claimed to have lived with Arthur from the date of her marriage to him on June 4, 1918 to the time of his death and Rosie Lee claimed to have lived with him from the time of her pretended marriage to him on June 18, 1949 to the time of his death.

On the foregoing evidence, the chancellor found that Arthur had given his insurance certificates to Emma but held that in view of the fact that the certificates reserved to the insured the right to designate a new beneficiary, the gift was subject to this right and he accordingly awarded the proceeds of the insurance to Rosie Lee.

There can be no doubt under the undisputed evidence that Arthur made a gift of the insurance certificates to Emma prior to the attempted change in beneficiary and that all of the essential elements of a gift were present; that is to say, he delivered the manual possession of the certificates to Emma and completely and absolutely surrendered all power and dominion over them and stated as his reason for so doing that Emma would have something to live on after his death, thereby manifesting a clear and unmistakable intention on his part to part absolutely with the title to the insurance.

The question presented by this appeal, therefore, is whether there can be a valid parol gift of an insurance policy, notwithstanding the reservation in the policy of the right to change the...