Taff v. Smith

• Decision Date: 28 June 1920
• Docket Number: 10456.
• Citation: 103 S.E. 551,114 S.C. 306
• Parties: TAFF v. SMITH.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

103 S.E. 551

114 S.C. 306

TAFF v. SMITH.

No. 10456.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

June 28, 1920

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Greenville County; James E. Peurifoy, Judge.

Action by Mrs. E. A. Taff against Mildred C. Smith and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and the named defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Bonham & Price, of Greenville, for appellant.

Cothran Dean & Cothran, of Greenville, for respondent.

GARY C.J.

The plaintiff sued the defendant and the Life Insurance Company of Virginia for the proceeds of a policy upon the life of S Edward Taff. The Life Insurance Company paid the money to the clerk of the court, by agreement of counsel representing the plaintiff and the defendant. Mrs. Taff thought she was entitled to the proceeds of the policy, because her son S Edward Taff, had sought to make her the beneficiary of the policy. The defendant Mrs. Mildred C. Smith claims that she is entitled to the proceeds of the policy because she was the beneficiary named therein, and because there had been no legal change of the beneficiary.

The following is an agreed statement of the testimony:

"The insured, S.E. Taff, on the 26th day of November, 1912, took out a policy on his life in amount $1,000, with the Virginia Life Insurance Company, naming his wife, the defendant, as beneficiary. In the application and policy the insured reserved the right to change the beneficiary, known as the right of revocation. With reference to the change of beneficiary, the following clause is found in the policy: 'When the right of revocation has been reserved, the insured may at any time while this policy is in force, by written notice to the company at its home office, change the beneficiary or beneficiaries under this policy, subject to any previous assignment; such change to take effect only upon indorsement of the same on this policy by the company whereupon all rights of the former beneficiary or beneficiaries shall cease.'

The proof showed that some time in 1913, the insured and his wife separated. The insured going to live with his mother, and the wife with her father. Subsequent to this time the wife obtained a divorce in Georgia, and married one Smith, about a month before the insured died.

On the 23d day of November, 1914, the insured made a written application to the company to change the beneficiary, of which the following is a copy: 'I named Mildred Taff as beneficiary, and now under the right I reserved in said application I wish to change the beneficiary and make Mrs. E. J. Taff (relationship to insured, if any), mother, the beneficiary, and I do by this writing make said change and substitution, and request that this change be made by the company's indorsement on said policy; the beneficiary clause in said policy in all other respects to remain the same as set out in the said policy.'

This application was sent to the home office by the agent in Greenville. The company instructed the Greenville office that it would be necessary to have the policy before the change of beneficiary could be made. The insured was unable to present the policy because the beneficiary had the same in her possession and refused to surrender it. The Greenville agent, at the insured's request, wrote the home office to know if the change would not be made without the policy, which the company refused to do."

The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.

His honor the presiding judge charged the following request of the defendant:

"If you should find from the evidence that the insured had given the policy in question to his wife, who is named as beneficiary, with words indicating that she was to receive the benefits thereof, this would amount in law to a valid assignment, and would be binding upon the assured, and those making claim under him, and no subsequent act of the insured in attempting to change the beneficiary would invalidate such assignment."

To this charge he added these words:

"So you will determine, Mr. Foreman and gentlemen, whether or not the insured did assign this policy to Mrs. Smith before attempting, if he did attempt, to have the beneficiary changed. If he did assign it to her, then under the terms of this policy we would not have any right to change the beneficiary, because, as I have already said, he could only change the beneficiary subject to any previous assignment."

The verdict of the jury in connection with this charge shows that the defendant did not have the...