Whiteselle v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 19 May 1920
• Docket Number: (No. 121-2989.)
• Parties: WHITESELLE v. NORTHWESTERN MUT. LIFE INS. CO.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

221 S.W. 575

WHITESELLE v. NORTHWESTERN MUT. LIFE INS. CO.

(No. 121-2989.)

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section B.

May 19, 1920.

Error to Court of Civil Appeals of Sixth Supreme Judicial District.

Action by Carrie B. Shook against the Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company. From a judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals (188 S. W. 22) reversing and rendering a judgment in favor of J. E. Whiteselle, executor of the estate of plaintiff, the latter having died after the suit was brought, the executor brings error. Affirmed.

Richard Mays, of Corsicana, for plaintiff in error.

Locke & Locke, of Dallas, for defendant in error.

McCLENDON, J.

Carrie B. Shook sued the Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company for the alleged conversion of a policy of insurance issued by it upon the life of her husband, J. O. Shook. The Court of Civil Appeals, Sixth District, reversed and rendered in favor of the insurance company a judgment of the trial court in favor of Whiteselle, executor of the estate of Carrie B. Shook, the latter having died after the suit was brought. 188 S. W. 22.

The question in the case is whether Carrie B. Shook retained any interest in the policy after being divorced from her husband. The pertinent facts follow: J. O. and Mary B. Shook were married September 9, 1886, at which time neither had any property. J. O. Shook was then clerking in a drug store at Corsicana. Later he went into the drug business for himself, and continued therein up to the time of the divorce. He and his family lived well, and some property was accumulated. At the time of the divorce his property, all of which was purchased with community funds, consisted of stock in a drug corporation and other personal property of small value, a homestead, and several parcels of real estate. The real estate, except the homestead, was by the divorce decree awarded to the wife as having been given her by her husband. The policy in question was issued November 29, 1891, and was made payable to Carrie B. Shook, with no right in J. O. Shook to change the beneficiary without her consent. The policy required the payment of an annual premium of $116 for 20 years. There was no cash surrender or loan value provided in the policy, but the testimony showed that it had a cash surrender value at the time of the divorce, ascertainable in accordance with certain mortality tables. All premiums prior to the divorce were paid with community funds. The divorce was granted upon the petition of the wife on December 8, 1908. The divorce decree purported to adjust all property rights of the spouses. After setting aside certain realty and personalty to the wife as her separate estate, it decreed that all other property, including the homestead, was community property. This decree was appealed from and affirmed. The property was then divided by commissioners, and their report made final. No reference to the policy was made in the decree or report of commissioners.

Plaintiff rests his claim for an interest in the policy upon the following grounds:

(1) That the policy was community personalty, one-half interest in which was by the decree vested in the wife.

(2) That the wife should be reimbursed for one-half of the premiums paid by community funds.

(3) That the cash surrender value of the policy at the time of the divorce was community personalty, which was by the decree vested, as to a one-half interest, in the wife.

We agree with the Court of Civil Appeals in its conclusion that all of these contentions have been by our Supreme Court decided adversely to plaintiff, and are now foreclosed.

That it is contrary to sound public policy, as tending to promote crime, to permit one to be the beneficiary of a life insurance policy who has no insurable interest in...