Ætna Life Ins. Co. v. Tremblay

• Decision Date: 17 September 1906
• Citation: 65 A. 22,101 Me. 585
• Parties: ÆTNA LIFE INS. CO. v. TREMBLAY et al.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

65 A. 22

101 Me. 585

ÆTNA LIFE INS. CO.

v. TREMBLAY et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Sept. 17, 1906.

Report from Supreme Judicial Court, Androscoggin County, in Equity.

Bill by the Ætna Life Insurance Company against Patrick F. Tremblay and others. Case reported, and bill dismissed.

After the hearing in the court of the first instance, the cause was "reported to the law court upon bill, answer, demurrers, and proof, the law court to render such judgment, upon so much of the evidence as is legally admissible and competent, as the rights of the parties require."

The attention of the profession is especially called to the rules laid down in the first three paragraphs of the headnotes, and also in the opinion, in relation to the necessity of pleading equitable defenses in actions at law. The point in this case is that the plaintiff in a former action at law against it did not interpose an alleged equitable defense which it had, and, not having interposed such defense, it cannot now maintain its bill in equity, founded on the same facts as in the action at law, but is concluded by the judgment in the action at law.

Argued before WISWELL, C. J., and EMERY, WHITEHOUSE, STROUT, SAVAGE, and POWERS, JJ.

Ralph W. Crockett, for plaintiff. Oakes, Pulsifer & Ludden, for defendants.

EMERY, J. The material facts are these: The plaintiff company, through its Canadian branch, issued a policy of life Insurance for $2,000 to Jean O. Tremblay, then of Quebec Province, payable to his wife Arthemise, or, in the event of her prior death, to his own representatives. In 1891, Tremblay, with his wife's consent, assigned the policy to Mr. Cloutier of Quebec as security for advances made and to be made by Cloutier for Tremblay. The policy was delivered to Cloutier with the assignment and retained by him till after Tremblay's death at Quebec, January 24, 1901, during which time Cloutier, at the request of Tremblay and wife, paid the annual premiums on the policy. A few days previous to his death, Tremblay and his wife had assigned all their interest in the policy to their son, Patrick F. Tremblay of Lewiston, Me. (one of the defendants in this suit) subject to Cloutier's rights under his prior assignment. Upon the death of the insured, Mr. Cloutier and Mr. Patrick F. Tremblay each claimed the whole Insurance money, Patrick insisting that little, if anything, was due Cloutier under the assignment to him. The company thereupon, on April 9, 1901, paid into the provincial treasury of Quebec, under a law of that Province, the amount due on the policy, $1,959.49. On the 22d of the same April, Cloutier began proceedings in the superior court of Quebec to establish his claim to the insurance money thus deposited, and on June 8th, following, obtained a judgment for the whole amount. The provincial treasurer thereupon paid over the entire sum to Cloutier, June 25, 1901.

Patrick F. Tremblay, however, on May 22, 1901, began in the Supreme Judicial Court of this state for Androscoggin county an action at law against the Insurance company to recover the amount of the insurance policy under the assignment to him. This action came on for trial at the January term, 1902, when it was reported to the law court upon the evidence without any stipulation as to pleadings, that court to render such judgment as the rights of the parties required. The law court, in June, 1903, rendered judgment against the company for the full amount of the policy, $1959.49, and interest. See 97 Me. 547, 55 Atl. 509, 94 Am. St. Rep. 521. The company thereupon procured from Cloutier a formal assignment of his claim upon the insurance money, and then brought this bill in equity against Patrick F. Tremblay, the plaintiff in that action at law, for the ascertainment of the amount due Cloutier out of the fund, and for the deduction of that amount from the judgment

Patrick F. Tremblay, the plaintiff in that action and the defendant in this suit, contends that all the facts necessary to sustain this bill were available to the company in defense of the action at law, and hence that the rights of the parties on those facts were adjudicated in that action and cannot be litigated again in this suit.

If the material facts now alleged were matters of defense to the action at law, and could have been interposed in defense in that action, this bill cannot be sustained. It is common learning that the judgment in an action at law is conclusive as to defenses actually made, and also as to defenses which might have been made but...