United States v. Williams, 5812.

• Citation: 86 F.2d 746
• Decision Date: 09 December 1936
• Docket Number: No. 5812.,5812.
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. WILLIAMS.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)

86 F.2d 746 (1936)

UNITED STATES v. WILLIAMS.

No. 5812.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

December 9, 1936.

Thomas E. Walsh, of Washington, D. C., and Michael L. Igoe, U. S. Atty., Edmond Sullivan, Asst. U. S. Atty., and Frederic Maughmer, Atty., Department of Justice, all of Chicago, Ill., for the United States.

Frank C. Wade, of Terre Haute, Ind., and W. J. Doyle, of Chicago, Ill., for appellee.

Before EVANS, Circuit Judge, and LINDLEY and BALTZELL, District Judges.

LINDLEY, District Judge.

The United States appeals from a judgment awarding war risk insurance benefits to the beneficiary in a contract of a deceased member of the Navy.

Benson Charles Williams, aged seventeen years, enlisted in the naval service January 13, 1919. On the same day he applied for and obtained a contract of war risk insurance in the principal sum of $10,000, in which appellee, his mother, was named as beneficiary. There was substantial evidence to sustain the finding of the District Court that at the time of his entry into the Navy there was written across the consent of the young man's parents to his enlistment a clause providing that such consent was given upon condition that he obtain and carry a $10,000 contract for war risk insurance in which his mother should be named as beneficiary. This consent, the court found, was executed by both parents in order to comply with the statute which provides that minors between the age of 14 and 18 shall not be enlisted for naval service without the consent of the parents or guardian. 34 U.S. C.A. § 161.

The premiums upon the insurance were paid by deductions from the salary or wages of the insured up to and including July, 1920. Thereafter no deductions were made, for on that date the insured requested cancellation of the policy. Early in the year of 1921 he sailed as a member of the crew of the U. S. S. Conastoga from San Francisco, Cal., for the Southern Pacific. The ship, its officers and the crew have not been heard from since. As a result, the insured was declared deceased, by the Navy Department, as of June 30, 1921.

Appellant contends that, because of the minor's attempted cancellation of the policy some months prior to his death, there is no liability. The insured died before reaching majority, and the direct question involved, therefore, is as to the effect of a minor's attempted cancellation of his insurance contract, under the specific facts involved. The government was charged with notice of his age and, by the terms of the instrument signed by his parents, of the fact that their consent to his enlistment was conditioned upon the issuance and maintenance of the insurance. In the face of notice of these facts, the government approved the minor's cancellation.

Under the law quite generally, a minor is without capacity to contract or take other legal action except for necessaries. His contracts are voidable, at the option of himself or parents. He himself may ratify any such voidable act upon reaching his majority, or he or his authorized representative or person in loco parentis may assert the voidability. Reliance upon the cancellation is in the nature of an assertion of estoppel against the beneficiary because of the action of the minor during his minority, but this is "but a claim that he has assented or contracted. But he can no more do that effectively than he can make the contract alleged to be confirmed." Myers v. Hurley Motor Co., Inc., 273 U.S. 18, 21, 47 S.Ct. 277, 278, 71 L.Ed. 515, 50 A.L.R. 1181. Assertion of...