Whitman v. Whitman, 6 Div. 158.

• Decision Date: 02 June 1932
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 158.
• Parties: WHITMAN v. WHITMAN.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

142 So. 413

225 Ala. 113

WHITMAN v. WHITMAN.

6 Div. 158.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 2, 1932

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Wm. M. Walker, Judge.

Bill in equity by Mary Etta Whitman against Allee H. Whitman individually and as administratrix of the estate of Henry P Whitman, deceased, the Columbian Mutual Life Insurance Company, and the New York Life Insurance Company, with a cross-bill by Allee H. Whitman. From a decree overruling a demurrer to the cross-bill, complainant appeals.

Affirmed.

Amzi G Barber, of Birmingham, for appellant.

A. Leo Oberdorfer, of Birmingham, for appellee.

ANDERSON C.J.

The answer and cross-bill set up the facts that the insured reserved the right to change the beneficiary; that he gave written notice to each of the insurance companies of his intent and purpose to change the beneficiary to his wife, the appellee; that he delivered the policies to his wife as the new beneficiary; that he caused a register to be made of his policies and recorded the fact that he had changed the beneficiary in the policies to his wife; that the companies understood and treated the policies as having changed the beneficiary. The appellant insists that this was but a conclusion of the pleader, and that in order for a valid change to have been made the cross-bill should have set out the terms of the policy providing for a change of the beneficiary and the statement of what was done as to changing the beneficiary. In other words, should have set out the provision of the policy providing for a change and set up a compliance therewith.

Where the insured reserves, in the policy, the right at any time and from time to time to change the beneficiary then subject only to right of the insurer to insist on the provisions of the policy as to manner of effecting such change, such change could be effected by parol or written instrument manifesting insured's intent to change the beneficiary. Holt v Russell (C. C. A.) 30 F. (2d) 597; Arrington v. Grand Lodge (C. C. A.) 21 F. (2d) 914; Missouri State Life Ins. Co. v. Robertson Banking Co., 223 Ala. 13, 134 So. 25, 27. As was said in the last case, supra, quoting from 2 Cooley's Briefs on Insurance, p. 1827: "But, if there is such a limitation [as to method of changing the beneficiary], it is solely for the benefit of the company, and, if it does not take advantage of it, no one else may do so."

Our case of McDonald v. McDonald, ...