Trotter v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Ass'n

• Decision Date: 16 April 1897
• Citation: 70 N.W. 843,9 S.D. 596
• Parties: TROTTER et al. v. MUTUAL RESERVE FUND LIFE ASS'N et al.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

70 N.W. 843

9 S.D. 596

TROTTER et al. v. MUTUAL RESERVE FUND LIFE ASS'N et al.

Supreme Court of South Dakota

April 16, 1897

Appeal from circuit court, Yankton county; E. G. Smith, Judge.

Action by Elizabeth A. Trotter and others against the Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association and Frank E. J. Warrick, administrator of the estate of Daniel L. Hadley (whose true name was Daniel L. Trotter), to recover on a policy of life insurance. From an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Fuller J., dissenting.

Aikens Bailey & Voorhees, for appellants. R. B. Tripp, for respondents.

HANEY J.

It is alleged in the complaint: "(1) That the defendant the Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association at the times herein stated was, and now is, a corporation duly created and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of New York. (2) That on or about the 3d day of October, 1893, at Yankton, South Dakota, said defendant association, in consideration of an application for insurance, payment of forty dollars, and the further payment of fifteen dollars within sixty days from said date, received one Daniel L Hadley as one of its members, upon consideration of the payment of eleven dollars and sixty cents, as a deposit in advance on account of mortuary premiums and dues, within thirty days from the first week day of the months of February, April, June, August, October, and December thereafter, and the payment of subsequent mortuary premiums and dues, and made its policy of insurance, whereby it agreed there should be payable to the executors or administrators of said member the sum of five thousand dollars within ninety days after the acceptance of satisfactory evidence of said member's death. (3) That on or about the 4th day of December, 1893, at Yankton, South Dakota, said member died. (4) That on the 13th day of January, 1894, the county court of Yankton county, South Dakota, duly appointed the defendant Frank E. J. Warrick as sole administrator of the estate of said member, Daniel L. Hadley, deceased; that said Warrick thereafter duly qualified, and is now administrator of said estate. (5) That on or about the _____ day of February, 1894, the said defendant association received and accepted satisfactory evidence of the death of said member from said administrator, and said defendant association, prior to said date, also waived the acceptance of satisfactory evidence of the death of said member, by denying liability upon said policy of insurance, and other acts; that said administrator duly performed all of the conditions of said policy of insurance upon his part. (6) That the name of said member, Daniel L. Hadley, deceased, was Daniel L. Trotter, and at the time of his application for said insurance, the issuance of said policy, and prior and subsequent thereto, he was more commonly known and called by the name Hadley than Trotter. (7) That the said member died intestate, and these plaintiffs are his only next of kin and heirs at law, to wit, mother, brothers, and sisters; that said member was never married, and had no wife or children. (8) That these plaintiffs requested said administrator to bring this action; that he refused to do so, and is therefore made a defendant, and the suit is prosecuted by these plaintiffs. (9) That on or about the 10th day of August, 1893, in consideration of $325.25, said administrator, as such, by written indorsement upon said policy of insurance, undertook to, and in form did, release and discharge said defendant association from all liability upon said policy of insurance. (10) That said release was executed by said administrator without the direction, authorization, or approval of said county court or judge thereof; that the said administrator executed the same without any authority whatever, and without the knowledge, consent, or ratification of these plaintiffs, or any of them, and the same was procured by the misrepresentation and fraud of said association and misconduct of said administrator; that none of these plaintiffs have ever received any part of the consideration, or anything, for said release, nor have they ever applied to the administrator to account therefor, nor to the said county court, or the judge thereof, to cause him to do so. (11) That the said association has not paid the said five thousand dollars, and the same is now due and payable." Appellants' demurrer to the complaint having been overruled, they appealed to this court. The ground relied upon is that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

The county court has original, but not exclusive, jurisdiction in all matters of probate guardianship and settlement of estates of deceased persons. The circuit court has original jurisdiction of all actions and causes both at law and in equity. It has, as a court of equity, concurrent jurisdiction in matters of administration, and will exercise such jurisdiction when the powers of the county court are inadequate to the purposes of perfect justice. St. Const art. 5, §§ 14, 20; Beach, Mod. Eq. Jur. §§ 1033, 1034. As a rule, actions to recover debts due an estate must be maintained by the executor or administrator, and not by the heirs or creditors; but to this rule there are exceptions, as where there is collusion between the debtor and personal representative or he is insolvent, or where the circumstances are such that the...