Young v. Hartford Life Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 23 March 1919
• Docket Number: No. 19825.,19825.
• Citation: 211 S.W. 1
• Parties: YOUNG et al. v. HARTFORD LIFE INS. CO.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

211 S.W. 1

YOUNG et al. v. HARTFORD LIFE INS. CO.

No. 19825.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

March 23, 1919.

Motion for Rehearing and to Transfer to Court in Banc Denied April 7, 1919.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lafayette County; Samuel Davis, Judge.

Action by Lillian Fulkerson Young and others against the Hartford Life Insurance Company. From judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Reversed, unless plaintiff consents to modification.

Jones, Hocker, Sullivan & Angert and Geo. F. Haid, all of St. Louis, for appellant.

S. N. Wilson, Chas. Lyons, and C. L. Ristine, all of Lexington, for respondents.

BOND, J. I.

Plaintiffs are the children and heirs at law of J. J. Fulkerson (who died June 6, 1914) and the beneficiaries of a policy of insurance for $3,000 issued to him on October 7, 1892, for the amount of which they asked judgment.

The defendant is a Connecticut corporation, licensed to transact the business of life insurance under the laws of this state, and in defense of its refusal to pay the amount of the policy avers that on January 30, 1914, it duly assessed the assured, J. J. Fulkerson, by computing the amount of said assessment (No. 142) by the method prescribed in its contract with him, and adding to this computation a tax thereon, making a total of $61.47; that notice thereof was sent by mail on that date to the address of the assured, and in addition thereto and by the same notice it demanded of assured the payment of $2.25 as dues for the quarter ending May 30, 1914; that the assured failed to pay said dues and said assessment on or before March 1, 1914, or on March 5th or 20th thereafter, at which dates defendant was willing to accept payment, and that assured has never at any time paid said assessment and quarterly dues, thereby terminating the policy of insurance or certificate of membership issued to him by defendant. Defendant further avers:

That the purpose of said assessment was to create a "mortuary fund" referred to in the certificate sued on; that such certificate is payable only out of said mortuary fund, and defendant is not otherwise liable for the indemnity provided by said certificate; that defendant is trustee of said fund for the beneficiaries of said certificate; that a court of competent jurisdiction in the state of Connecticut in a suit brought in that state by persons holding certificates similar to the one in suit has adjudicated the rights of the holders of such certificates, and that a copy of the judgment and proceedings of said court is attached as an exhibit to its answer; "that, under the Constitution of the United States, full faith and credit must be given to the judgments and decrees of the courts of Connecticut; that, under the terms of said trust as construed and adjudicated by said courts, defendant is without authority to pay out of said mortuary fund the amount of any certificate of membership where, as in the case of J. J. Fulkerson, the member has failed or refused to pay the assessment levied against him to maintain such fund. Wherefore, defendant shows to the court that it is not liable to plaintiffs in this case, and prays to be dismissed with its costs."

Under a peremptory instruction the jury returned a verdict of $3,265, from which defendant duly appealed to this court, upon the theory that a federal question is involved.

II. The decrees in the Connecticut court and all the proceedings culminating therein were admitted in evidence on the trial of the present case without objection. That they are entitled to full faith and credit in the courts of this state, whenever relevant to any issue before them, is the mandate of the Constitution, and has been recently affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States. Hartford, etc., Ins. Co. v. Barber, 245 U. S. 146, 38 Sup. Ct. 54, 62 L. Ed. 208. The points ruled in that case were that it was within the province of the Connecticut court to determine the rule of assessments under the charter of the company and the method by which they can be made. 7.171 the case then under review, this court had held that a particular assessment complained of was void for excess in amount and because not...