Sydnor v. Boyd

• Decision Date: 01 December 1896
• Citation: 26 S.E. 92,119 N.C. 481
• Parties: SYDNOR v. BOYD.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

26 S.E. 92

119 N.C. 481

SYDNOR v. BOYD.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

December 1, 1896

Appeal from superior court, Surry county; Norwood, Judge.

Action by W. G. Sydnor against McDowell Boyd on a promissory note. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Application had been made for two policies of insurance, one on the life of McDowell Boyd, for $1,000, for the benefit of his wife Anna Louisa Boyd, and the other for a like amount on the life of the wife, for the benefit of the husband. After a great deal of solicitation, the defendant, McDowell Boyd, agreed to deliver to the plaintiff, Sydnor, agent of the Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, a box of tobacco, and to execute his promissory note, dated June 5, 1893, and due at a subsequent date, in the same year, for $127, as the premium for both policies. When the policies were returned, it appeared that Anna Louisa Boyd had been made the beneficiary in both, and her husband refused to receive them, because of the failure to comply with the contract. The agent Sydnor thereafter took back both policies, but soon returned them with what purported to be an assignment by the wife to the husband of the policy on her own life, which transfer is as follows: "For one dollar, to me in hand paid, and for other valuable considerations (the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged), I hereby assign, transfer, and set over to McDowell Boyd, of Pinnacle, N. C., all my right, title, and interest in this policy (596, 751) issued by the Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York; and, for the consideration above expressed, I do also, for myself, my executors and administrators, guaranty the validity and sufficiency of the foregoing assignment to the above-named assignee, his executors, administrators, and assigns, and their title to the said policy will forever warrant and defend. Anna Louisa Boyd. Dated at Pinnacle, N. C., this 1st day of July, 1895. In presence of W. G. Sydnor." Upon the assurance that the assignment placed the policy upon the same footing with the company as if it had been originally made payable to him the defendant executed the note for $127 on which the plaintiff has brought this action. Soon after executing the note, instead of the assent to the assignment expected, the defendant received the following from the company: "Dear Sir: A duplicate of assignment of policy 596, 751 to yourself has been received and filed. The company assumes no responsibility as to its validity. Respectfully, C. F. Brosee & Sons, Genl. Agts., per Wooten." On receipt of this the defendant tendered the policies to the plaintiff, and demanded his note, telling him that the policies were worthless to him unless written in accordance with the applications. The policies of insurance were introduced as evidence, both of which contained the following conditions on the back thereof: "Notice to the holder of this policy: No person, except an executive officer of the company or its secretary at its head office in New York, has power on behalf of the company to make, modify, or alter this contract, to extend the time for paying a premium, to bind the company by making any promise or by accepting any representation or information not contained in the application for this contract. Any interlineations, additions, or erasures must be attested by the signature of one of the above-named officers. Assignments: The company declines to notice any assignment, of this policy until the original assignment, or a duplicate or a certified copy thereof, shall be filed in the company's home office. The company will not assume any responsibility for the validity of an assignment." The following issues, which were, without objection, submitted to the jury, attached hereto as Exhibit 3, are as follows: "(1) Did the plaintiff, as agent of the insurance company, contract to deliver to defendant two policies of insurance as alleged by him, and receive the note sued on in consideration thereof? Answer: Yes. (2) Did plaintiff violate said contract? Answer: No." After the argument, it was admitted by counsel for both parties that if the assignment was valid, so that policy could be collected by defendant in case of his wife's death, the second issue should be answered "No"; otherwise, it should be answered "Yes." There was a verdict by the jury on first issue on behalf of defendant. His honor answered the second issue "No," on the evidence. The defendant moved for a new trial, on the ground that the court erred in instructing the jury to answer the second issue "No," and appealed from the judgment rendered.

Glenn & Manly, for appellant.

Carter & Lewellyn, for appellee.

AVERY J.

At common law, the husband and wife, being deemed one person were incapable of contracting with each other; and it was necessary to convey to a third person, as a conduit, in order to pass the title to property from one to the other. The rule was different in equity, where assignments or conveyances were held to raise a trust in favor of the assignee or grantee. Now, however, the wife is allowed to acquire title to property conveyed to her by the husband or any other person; the conveyances being liable, like other deeds or instruments that pass title, to impeachment for fraud upon sufficient grounds. Walker v. Long, 109 N.C....