UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. GIFT OF The Law of Life Insurance In Re Beneficiary and Assignment BY CHARLES W. FRICKE, LL.M. OF THE NEW YORK BAR 1903 PUBLISHED BY HOOPER is? UNDERWOOD 87 NASSAU STREET NEW YORK CONTENTS. BENEFICIARY ...... 3 ASSIGNMENT ...... 38 ASSIGNMENT FORMS ..... 48 TABLE OF CASES CITED .... 60 INDEX . . . . . . .109 112682 BENEFICIARY. No questions relating to life insurance have so frequently been before the courts, as those arising out of the designation of the beneficiary, and the assignment of the contract of insurance. Within the last half century, at least one-half the life insurance questions presented to attorneys, either for the claimants, or for the Company, or Mutual Benefit Society, involved the question as to whom payment of the proceeds of a matured policy or certificate should be made. Upon the maturity of a contract of life insurance, two questions arise: to whom are the proceeds payable, and, if payable to more than one person, in what manner are they to be divided. The liability of the insurer, and the interests involved and af- fected by such liability arising under the contract of insurance, make a correct interpretation of its conditions, and the statutory laws applicable there- to, of the greatest moment to the business of life insurance. A contract of life insurance is an agreement The CONTRACT. whereby one of the parties, the insurer, in consid- eration of a certain sum of money, called the pre- mium, undertakes to pay a certain larger sum of money upon the death of the person whose life is insured, to the payee under the terms of the con- tract. The payee mentioned in the contract is The Beneficiary called the beneficiary. An endowment policy dif- Endowment fers from the ordinary life policy, in that, if Policy Beneficiary may sue on the Contract. Payment to a person not entitled. INSURABLE INTEREST, What insurable interest is. Mere relationship not sufficient. Must be a Pecuniary interest. the insured outlives a given period of years, the proceeds of the policy become payable to him, and the beneficiary's interest in the policy terminates. Even when not one of the contracting parties, the beneficiary may bring an action against the insurer on the contract ( i ) . Payment by the insurer to a person not entitled to the proceeds, does not prevent the beneficiary from bringing an action against the insurer for the amount of the claim (52 N. E., 750), but the beneficiary has no cause of action against the parties to whom the insurer paid the amount, as they have not assumed to act for him or to take the money for his use. The primary requisite for a valid contract of in- surance is, that there must be an insurable interest. Generally speaking, an insurable interest may be said to be such an interest which one person has in the life of another, as would create a desire for the continuance of such life. There must be a reason- able ground, founded upon the relation of the par- ties to expect some benefit or advantage from the continuance of the life insured. Although often asserted that mere relationship gives an insurable interest, it will be noted that in the cases holding relationship a sufficient ground for insurable interest, there has always been present some liabil- ity for support, or sufficient foundation for an in- surable interest, independent of the mere relation- ship. Where relationship involves a reasonable claim to support or some other material benefit or advantage to be derived from the continuance of the life insured, there is sufficient to constitute an insurable interest. Our courts have at various times held that a wife has an insurable interest in the life of her husband (114) ; a husband in the life of his wife (115) ; a partner in the life of his co- partner (116) ; a creditor in the life of his debtor (14) ; a bondsman in the life of him whose surety he is (117), and in the life of his fellow bondsman (118) ; a tenant in the life of his landlord if the landlord has only a life estate (119) ; a master in the life of his servant under contract for a term of years (120) ; a servant in the life of his master (121) ; children in the lives of their parents (122) ; but brothers and sisters have no insurable interest in the lives of one another (123). It does not fol- low however, that whenever one of the relations mentioned above exists, that there exists an insur- able interest. Mere relationship gives no insurable interest. There must be present a pecuniary inter- est or the person seekin^ to establish his insurable interest must show that he was dependent upon the insured for support. (2). At Common Law, there was no necessity for insurable interest (3), but this was changed by the statute 14 Geo., III., C48, which made an interest in the life insured essential. It is now firmly settled, both in England and this country, that where some person, other than the insured, takes out the insurance, the beneficiary must have an insurable interest, or the contract will be void as against public policy. (4). When we come to those cases in which a per- son takes out insurance on his own life, we meet a conflict of decisions as to the necessity of the beneficiary having an insurable interest. It is firmly settled that every person has an insurable interest in his own life, and in New York, and a large number of States, it is held that where a per- Common Law Rule. Policy taken out by some person other than the insured. Policies taken out by the insured. Insurable interest in own life. Prevailing Rule. Contrary Jurisdictions. Rule in Texas. Necessity of insurable interest. son takes out insurance on his own life, and the contract is not a mere cover for a speculation or wager contravening the general policy of the law, he may make any one he chooses the beneficiary of such insurance, subject to the terms of the contract, and, even though the beneficiary has no insurable interest in the life insured, the contract is valid and the beneficiary may recover the proceeds due at the maturity of the contract. ( 5 ) . In the United States Courts, however, and in a few of the States, the beneficiary is always required to have an insurable interest, even where the insur- ance is taken out by the insured. (6). In quite a recent case in the State of Texas (27 S. W., 286), where the policy was taken out by the insured, lack of insurable interest was held, not to avoid the policy, but that the beneficiary held as trustee for those legally entitled to the proceeds. The cases of Warnock vs. Davis (104 U. S., 775) and Cam- mack vs. Lewis (15 Wall, 643), are generally cited as holding that in all instances the beneficiary must have an insurable interest. This question was not squarely before the court, for the transactions in both cases were clearly wagering contracts, and the New York courts would also have declared them void as against public policy. Where the insurance is taken out by some person other than the insured, the beneficiary should in every instance be compelled to have an insurable interest, for to hold otherwise, would be to throw open the doors to transactions for the mere pur- pose of speculating upon human life, and the at- tendant dangers of fraud and even murder. Careful consideration of the subject cannot fail to convince, that where a man in good faith in- sures his life, the insurable interest which he has in his own life is sufficient to make the contract a binding and valid one, and that the beneficiary need have no insurable interest. If the courts attack such insurance upon the ground that it is against public policy for any person to have a greater desire for the death, rather than the life of another, is there not as much ground for saying that devises and bequests, life tenancies, dower and curtesy, are contrary to public policy ? In answer to those who may contend that the testator may revoke his will, and that this distinguishes the character of the two transactions, it is sufficient to say, that with but very few exceptions, all the life insurance com- panies and mutual benefit societies now doing busi- ness in this country, are making insurance contracts which give the insured as great a right to change the beneficiary, as the testator has to change his devisee or legatee. A contract of life insurance is not a contract of INSURANCE indemnity, and an insurable interest, when re- CONTRACT NOT quired, need be present only at the inception of the INDEMNITY contract, and termination of such interest has no effect upon the validity of the contract. (7). The Termination of case of Godsall vs. Boldero, 9 East 72, decided by Insurable Lords Mansfield and Ellenborough, held that a 1 beneficiary could not recover upon a policy after his insurable interest had ceased. This case, which proceeded upon the theory that the contract was one of indemnity, has been overruled by Dalby vs. Assurance Co., 15 C. B., 365, and the subsequent cases, and is not now the law, either in England or the United States. WHO MAY BE A BENEFICIARY. IN REGULAR LIFE INSURANCE. IN MUTUAL BENEFIT INSURANCE. Beneficiaries must be within certain Classes. Designation of Beneficiary not within pre- scribed class to whom the proceeds will be paid. Construction of Charter and By-Laws. While the question as to who may be the bene- ficiary may depend largely on the question, whether the proposed beneficiary has an insurable interest, still there are in some cases other limitations on the right to be a beneficiary. In the regular life insur- ance companies, there is no requirement with which the beneficiary need comply other than that of in- surable interest. In the case of mutual bene- fit insurance the law is somewhat different, for the charter, constitution, or by-laws of the so- ciety, and the statutes of most of the States, limit the persons who may be the beneficiaries under the certificate to certain classes. Those to whom mutual benefit certificates may be payable, are gen- erally, the husband, wife, family, blood relatives, affianced husband or affianced wife, or such persons as may be dependent upon the member of the so- ciety for support. These restrictions upon the right of a member of a mutual benefit society to make any one a bene- ficiary, arise from the very nature of these organi- zations, for their primary object is to afford pro- tection to the family or dependents of the members ; consequently, where the member designates as his beneficiary one who is not within the prescribed class, the designation is invalid and ineffective, and the benefit is payable to such person or persons who would have taken, had no designation ever been made. (8), The charter and by-laws will how- ever, be liberally construed, so as to carry out the benevolent character of the organization, so long as such construction does not violate the statute law, or contravene public policy. (9). On the other hand, statutes must be strictly com- 8 plied with, and are subject to the rules of statutory construction. Statutes passed after the organiza- ion of a mutual benefit society, enlarging the class of persons eligible to beneficiaryship, need not be formally adopted by the society. (10). Statutes restricting the beneficiaries of mutual benefit societies to certain classes, cannot affect a certificate in force prior to its enactment. ( 1 1 ) . "A corporation cannot by stipulations in its con- tract avoid or withdraw the operation of a statute of the place where it does business." 13 Fed. R. 528. 101 Cal. 627. There have been a few decisions (53 Ark. 255- 84 la. 734), which hold that where the society has known that the designated beneficiary is not within the eligible class, that there has been a waiver by the society of the usual requirements. The Ar- kansas decision may be accounted for by the fact that in that State there is no statutory requirement as to beneficiaries, while in the Iowa decision the restricting statute was passed after the issuance of the certificate. The question frequently arises as to whom the society is liable upon the death of an insured mem- ber, when the beneficiary designated is not within the prescribed class, or when no beneficiary has been designated. The charter, by-laws, or constitution of a mutual benefit society usually provide how and to whom the proceeds of a matured certificate shall be paid in default of a valid designation of a beneficiary. The designation of a beneficiary in a mutual benefit certificate is an act testamentary in Compliance with Statutes. Enlarging Statutes. Restrictive Statutes their effect upon existing contracts. Waiver by Society of requirements. Absence of valid designa- tion of Beneficiary. Designation is of a testamen- tary nature. Society held liable to no one. Contrary rule. CREDITOR AS PAYEE. Creditor has insurable interest in life of debtor. its character and the same rules of construction apply as in other testamentary writings. (12). It has therefore often been held, that where there is no valid designation of a beneficiary at the death of the insured, the benefit lapses and the so- ciety is liable to no one, (13), but these cases de- pend rather upon the peculiar wording of the char- ter, by-laws, constitution, or certificate. Forfeit- ures are only enforced when it is the plain intent of the contract that they shall be; provisions relied upon to authorize a forfeiture are construed most strongly against the insurer, and when they are repugnant, the courts will enforce those which will prevent a forfeiture. There can be no doubt, especially in the light of the later cases (102 Mich., 23 ; 60 N. W., 445 ; 112 N. Y., 627), and the attitude of the Courts toward forfeitures, that in the absence of express forfeit- ure provisions in the contract, an action can be maintained by the administrator of the insured to recover the proceeds where there has been no pro- vision made, either by the insured or the society, for payment of the benefits in the event of the absence of a valid designation of beneficiary. It is unusual for a member of a mutual benefit society to make the certificate payable to his cred- itor, but a large number of contracts in regular life insurance companies are made payable, assigned to, or taken out by, the insured's creditors. There is no doubt but that a creditor has an insurable inter- est in the debtor's life ; ( 14), but the questions arise as to the amount of insurance which may be made payable to the creditor, how much of this amount the creditor mav hold as his own, and what effect, 10 if any, payment of the debt has upon the right of the creditor to share in the proceeds. If the amount of the insurance is so far in excess Wagers are of the debt, with interest, plus the expense of car- ^ rying the insurance, as to indicate an intent of the reatlyin creditor to speculate upon the life of the debtor, the excess of the policy is void (15). In the well known case of Cam- debt. mack vs. Lewis (15 Wall, 643), the policy was in the amount of $3,000, of which $2,000 was payable to Cammack to secure a debt of $70. The policy was procured at the instigation of Cammack, and while not made directly payable to him, was as- signed to him by Lewis. The court declared the assignment void, and held that Cammack was only entitled to the amount of the debt out of the fund collected. The mere fact that the proceeds of the policy Proceeds in exceed the amount of the debt, with interest and excess of premiums, will not render the policy invalid or debt, interest prevent the creditor from retaining the entire and prem amount of the policy. Thus, in Rittler vs. Smith, 70 Md., 261, where the debt was about $1,000, and the insurance received by the creditor was $2,124.82, and in Amick vs. Butler, in. Ind., 578, where the debt was $600, and the proceeds received by the creditor amounted to $2,000, the creditor was held to be entitled to the excess over the debt and premiums. Some jurisdictions, seemingly with the idea that a policy of life insurance is a contract of indemnity, have decided, that even though the insured had taken out the policy and made it payable to the creditor, such creditor might hold as his own, only so much of the proceeds of ii Amount of Proceeds the creditor bene- ficiary may hold as his own. Rights of Cred- itor when not a payee. IN MUTUAL BENEFIT INSURANCE. Not a part of member's estate. Exempting Statutes. IN REGULAR LIFE INSURANCE. Policy payable to insured or his estate. Premiums paid in fraud of creditors. Wife's Policy Laws. the policy as would pay the debt with interest and the cost of the insurance up to the time of the in- sured's death, but the better rule is, that the creditor is entitled to the entire proceeds of a policy in which he is the beneficiary, unless there has been a breach of the law against wagering contracts (16). No small part of the questions arising in life in- surance litigation, involve the rights of creditors against life insurance contracts of which they are neither the beneficiaries nor the assignees. As a general rule, the fund payable on the death of a member of a mutual benefit society is not a part of his estate and subject to his debts (17). Statutes have been passed in many of the States, exempting the proceeds of a benefit certificate from legal or equitable process, for the debts of the member or his beneficiary (18). Policies in life insurance companies are frequently the subjects of the attacks of creditors. A policy payable to the insured, his estate, or his executor or administrator, may independent of statute, be proceeded against by his creditor as a part of the insured's estate. Where premiums are paid in fraud of creditors, or a policy is taken out by the insured while in- solvent, the creditors may claim the proceeds or the premiums thus fraudulently paid, in the absence of a statute to the contrary (19), even though the policy was by its terms payable to some third person. Statutes have been enacted in many of the States which protect, to a certain extent, the in- terests of a wife, or wife and children, in a policy upon the life of a husband and father, even though 12 the policy was taken out by the insured and pre- miums paid while insolvent. (20) The New York The New York statute permits a married woman, in her own name Statute. or in the name of a third person, with his consent as her trustee, to cause the life of her husband to be insured for her benefit, and when such married woman is living at the maturity of the policy, she is entitled to receive the insurance money according to the terms of the policy, free from the claims of the creditors or representatives of her husband, ex- cept where the premium actually paid annually out of the husband's property exceeds $500; that por- tion of the insurance money which is purchased by the excess of premium above $500, is primarily liable for the debts of the husband. The policy may also provide, that in the event of the wife dying before the maturity of the policy, without disposing of it, it shall be payable to her husband or his, her, or their children, or to or for the use of one or more of such persons, and it may also desig- nate trustees for such child or children, to receive and manage the proceeds until they attain full age. An obvious defect in this statute is, that it affords protection from creditors only in those cases in which the wife causes the life of her husband to be insured, and does not cover insurance payable to the wife, taken out by the husband of his own ac- cord. Other State statutes provide that the wife's inter- Other State est in any policy on the life of her husband shall Statutes. be free from the claims of creditors or representa- tives of the insured, except that the amount of in- surance purchased by premium paid out of the husband's estate, in excess of that allowed by stat- 13 Alabama Law. When creditors may step in. Endowment Policies payable to married women. Policy assigned to a married woman. ute, is subject to the husband's debts. In some statutes, the creditor's rights can only be enforced against the amount of the premiums paid in excess of the premium mentioned in the statute. In Penn- sylvania it is held (99 Pa. St., 133), that where a person takes out a policy on his own life, in the name and for the benefit of his family or dependent relatives, their title is not subject to his debts, and even the question of fraud cannot be raised. Under the Alabama Code, Sec. 2733, a policy on the life of the husband, payable to the wife and chil- dren, was held not subject to the claims of the cred- itors, and solvency or insolvency of the husband when the premiums were paid, did not affect the policy; (56 Ala., 333), but in a subsequent case, (76 Ala., 199), annual premiums in excess of $500, were held liable for the husband's debts. It is also the law in Alabama, that where the wife prede- ceases the husband, his creditors take precedence over her "heirs and representatives," to whom the policy is made payable, in the event of her death. (87 Ala., 263.) While it has been held (21), that an endowment policy is not within these exemptions, such de- cisions are not in line with the letter or intent of the statutes, and in the light of better considered cases are wrong on principle. The wife's interest in such policies is vested and subject only to be de- feated by the husband's surviving the endowment period. Unless specially provided by statute, the exemp- tions in favor of a wife's policy do not apply when the policy was originally payable to some one else and then assigned to her. (22) The proceeds of a statutory "wife's policy" are not exempt from the Creditors of claims of her creditors, in the absence of express beneficiary of statutory provision. (23) In a recent case, in 138 Wlfes pohcy ' N. Y., 369, a wife's policy was purchased with Policy pur- funds misappropriated by the insured husband, and chased it was held that the proceeds could be proceeded against and recovered for the benefit of the firm from which the funds were wrongfully taken, and this decision would, no doubt, be followed in most States. Where a policy is payable to the wife and chil- Policy payable dren, or to the wife with a reversion to the chil- dren, the wife's creditors can proceed only against the rights of the wife under the policy, and her fail- ure to survive the insured, in most cases terminates any rights she, or any person claiming under her, may have had during her lifetime. Section 7oa 5, of the United States Bankruptcy BANKRUPTCY OF Act of 1898, provides, in substance, that where the INSURED OR cash surrender value of any policy is payable to the ENEFICIARY - bankrupt or his estate, he may pay or secure to the U. S. BANK- trustees in bankruptcy, the amount of such cash RUPTCY A CT. surrender value, and hold the policy free from the claims of all creditors participating in the distribu- tion of the estate in bankruptcy ; if this be not done, the policy will pass to the trustees as assets. (24) The same act also provides that the trustee shall become vested with the title of the bankrupt to all property which could be transferred, and in Section 6, it is provided that the bankrupt's right under the State exemption laws shall not be affected. These two provisions do not refer or apply to insurance policies. (25) Where policy rende ^value* r payable*o'flie bankrupt. Let us first consider policies having a cash sur- render vaiue payable to the bankrupt at the time the P etition is filed - Such policies will undoubt- edly pass to the trustee unless the debtor can claim the protection of some State law, exempting such policy from liability for his debts. Can he claim this protection ? Congress, in passing this bankruptcy law, gave to debtors the benefit of State exemption laws, but this (Sec. 6), is qualified by Section 7oa5, in which specific provision is made for insurance policies in which the bankrupt has an interest, and in like man- ner, that part of the United States Bankruptcy Act which gives to the trustee all property which could be transferred is also qualified by Section 7oa5. If it be claimed that Section 6, and the section relating to transferrable property, apply to insurance poli- cies, what was the need of inserting any specific reference to insurance policies in this Act? Be- cause it was the intent and purpose of Congress to limit the previous sections of the Act, and to pro- vide that all policies having a cash surrender value, and only such, should pass to the trustee, and the express provision for insurance policies, is the only portion of the Act which applies to insurance poli- cies. If, therefore, a State law gives to a bankrupt any greater protection than is afforded by that part of Section 7035, of the Federal Act, which makes express provision for insurance policies, there is a conflict of statutes, and when there is a conflict be- tween State and Federal enactments, there can be no doubt which will prevail, for it is expressly pro- vided in the Constitution of the United States that 16 "the laws of the United States *:,*,* shall be the supreme law of the land." It was not necessary to enact that part of Section 7y the provisions of such statute. The proceeds of a policy so payable cannot, therefore, be considered as a part of the estate of the insured and subject to his debts. Many of the policies issued some years ago have been made payable to the insured's "legal repre- sentatives." It has been held (26 N. E., 464) that those whom the insured intended to take, under such designation, were entitled to the proceeds, but this decision cannot be binding upon any case other than that which was then before the court. These words in their strict legal sense, mean executor or administrator, and they will be so construed, unless there are facts showing that these words were not used in their ordinary sense. (31 ) . The words "if living," in a beneficiary clause, re- fer to the beneficiary's living at the maturity of the policy, and not to the time when the contract had its inception. (32). Where the rights of a beneficiary depend upon his surviving either the insured or another bene- ficiary, and both of the parties perish in a common disaster, the proceeds will be distributed as if the conditional beneficiary had died first, unless those claiming under such beneficiary can prove his sur- vivorship. There is no presumption of survivor- "Heirs." Take as purchasers. "Legal Rep- resentatives." "If living." Survivorship. Death in a Common Disaster. No presumption of survivorship. 21 "As his interest may appear." "Relatives/ "Dependents.' 'Wife." Divorce. ship, and the burden of proof rests upon the party asserting survivorship and whose rights depend upon it. (33). Under a policy to the beneficiary "as his interest may appear," such beneficiary can recover and hold as his own, only so much of the proceeds as his interest in the life insured actually amounts to at the maturity of the contract. "Relatives," a frequent designation of the bene- ficiaries of a mutual benefit certificate, includes relatives by marriage as well as by blood (34), but it does not include an illegitimate child. (35). When the insurance proceeds are made payable to the "dependents" of the insured, the term is to be strictly construed and confined to those who are actually dependent upon the insured for support. (36). The term does not include a creditor (37), nor a concubine (38), even though literally de- pendent, but a woman who in good faith lives with a man, believing herself to be his wife, although there has been no legal marriage, is a dependent within the meaning of the term. ^9). It would hardly seem necessary to call upon the courts to determine to whom the proceeds of a policy payable to the "wife," should be paid, but it is not at all unusual for a life insurance company to receive proofs of death and claim to the proceeds, from more than one "wife." Thus oftentimes, the companies are met with claims to the proceeds of the same policy or certificate by a divorced wife, and the wife of a second marriage. In the case of a regular life insurance policy, divorce does not terminate the right of the divorced wife to the proceeds (40) : but in the case of mutual 22 benefit insurance, divorce (except a mensa et thoro (41) ), causes the wife to lose her interest in a cer- tificate payable to a "wife" or "widow," or where beneficiaries are limited to the heirs or family of the insured. (42). The word "wife," in a mutual bene- "Wife" fit certificate, ordinarily includes only the lawful wife of the member in case she survives him (43), but, in 44 111., 188 (see also 53 N. Y. Supp., 622), where one Bachman took out a certificate payable "to his wife, Cecelia Bachman," it was held that the said Cecelia, although merely his affianced wife, was entitled to the benefit on the ground that she was the person intended as the beneficiary, and was as his fiancee, eligible to beneficiaryship in the society. In regular life insurance policies a desig- nation of the "wife" of the insured as the bene- ficiary, without any designation by name, can only mean the then lawful wife of the insured and such wife, unless the contract otherwise provides, will take a vested interest. Insurance payable to the "widow" of the insured "Widow." is payable to the wife who survives him (44) ; the fact that the insured married his surviving wife after the insurance was taken out does not change this rule. No small part of the insurance in force at the "Wife and present day is payable to the wife and children of Children." the insured, and the question often arises, to what share of the proceeds is each of the beneficiaries entitled ? The weight of authority is, that the bene- ficiaries share equally, unless the proportions are Distribution of specified (45), but there are a few decisions (46) Proceeds. which hold that the shares of the beneficiaries are to be determined according to the statute of distri- 23 "Husband and Children." Distribution of Proceeds. "Child" or "Children." Does not include Grand- child or Grand- children. Exceptions. Death of Child beneficiary. Policy payable to "Children." In Regular Life Insurance In Mutual Benefit Insurance. Adopted child. Children born subsequent to consummation of contract. butions. Policies in which the husband and chil- dren of the insured are named as beneficiaries, are very few in number, but the decision in 40 S. W., 686, to the effect that such beneficiaries take per capita, will undoubtedly be followed in most States. It may be laid down as a general rule, that the words "child" or "children," do not include a grandchild, or grandchildren (47), although there are decisions to the contrary in a few States (48). There are, however, two exceptions to this rule; first, where the writing would be inoperative if strictly construed, and second, where the context shows that the word was not used in its ordinary meaning, but in a more extended sense. While in some jurisdictions the word "children" does not include grandchildren, it does not follow that where a child, one of the beneficiaries under the policy payable to the children of the insured, dies, that its interest either reverts to the insured or vests in the surviving children. If the insurance be in a regular life insurance company, the beneficiary has a vested interest in the policy and this interest will go to the deceased child's administrator or executor (56) -(62) -86). In the mutual benefit cases, where beneficiaries are held to have rights in the chose in action similar to joint tenants with the right of survivorship (85) the rule is obviously different. Where the circumstances show that he was in- tended to be a beneficiary, an adopted child will take under a policy payable by its terms to the children of the insured (49). Under a designation of the "children" of the in- sured as beneficiaries, a child born subsequent to 24 the consummation of the contract, will be included (50) ; but where the insurance is payable to the children by name, a child born subsequent to such designation has no right to share in the proceeds (so. Where the beneficiaries designated are the "chil- dren" of the insured, the designation includes chil- dren of the insured by a former or subsequent wife of the insured (52), but it does not include children of the wife by a former husband (53). * A policy or certificate payable to the wife of the insured and "their children" should, from the very meaning of the words used, include only such chil- dren as are common to the husband and wife, and the courts will so hold, unless a clear intent to the contrary, on the part of the insured, be shown (54). The particular designations of beneficiaries, dealt with in the foregoing paragraphs, include the most common methods, outside of desipnations of bene- ficiaries by name, by which the insured points out to whom he wishes the insurance moneys paid. The insurance solicitor should be instructed to warn the prospective insurant against all designa- tions not clearly setting forth the intent, and the entire intent of the insured, as to whom the pro- ceeds of his policy or certificate shall be payable at the maturity of the contract. Having designated a beneficiary, it frequently becomes important for the insured or the insurer to determine the interest the beneficiary has in the certificate or policy of insurance. The interest may be either vested, contingent, or conditional, accord- ing to the particular form of words used in the beneficiary clause. The interest of the beneficiary "Children" in- cludes all chil- dren of insured. Does not include children of wife by former husband. "Their Chil- dren" Wife and. INTEREST OF THE BENEFICIARY. Death of insured gives beneficiary a vested interest. Regular Life Policy vested interest if in- sured cannot change the Beneficiary. Where insured may change the beneficiary. CONTRACT BETWEEN INSURED AND BENEFICIARY. is, however, often the subject of judicial construc- tion where no conditions or words of limitation are used in the beneficiary clause. In such cases we must look not only to the express words desig- nating the payee, but to the intent and effect of the entire agreement. It is well settled, that in the absence of a provision in the contract to the con- trary, the right of the beneficiary becomes vested immediately upon the death of the insured (55). In a regular life insurance policy, the beneficiary upon the issuance of the policy acquires a vested interest therein, which cannot be impaired with- out his consent (56). This rule does not in- clude such policy contracts as contain what is known as the "Change of Beneficiary Clause," which allows the insured to change the beneficiary in the manner, and subject to the conditions, set forth in the clause. Where the contract permits the insured to change the beneficiary at will and without the consent of the then beneficiary, it is settled beyond a doubt that the interest of a beneficiary of such a contract is not absolutely vested (57). The in- terest of a beneficiary in a life insurance policy permitting a change of beneficiary is but little less than a vested interest, and may be described as an interest vested, but subject to be defeated by a valid change. It has been suggested that where a person be- came a member of a mutual benefit association, under an agreement with the proposed beneficiary that the beneficiary should pay all assessments, and they were so paid, the beneficiary acquired a vested interest, and that the member lost his right to change the beneficiary (58), but the proposition is 26 a very doubtful one, and some of the States have express statutory provisions to the effect that no such contract can take from the member his right to change the beneficiary. The mere possession by a beneficiary of a benefit certificate or policy, does not of itself take away from the insured any rights which he may have of changing the beneficiary (59). The vested rights of minor children cannot be affected by a surrender of a regular life policy to the company, even though their consent is obtained (60). So many policies are made payable to the "wife, and in the event of her prior death, to the children" of the insured, that it becomes highly important to determine the interests of the children. The inter- ests of the children, as well as those of the wife, are vested, but conditional (61). The interest of the wife is conditional upon her surviving the insured ; the interests of the children are conditional upon the death of the mother before the maturity of the contract, and upon her death all interest in the policy vests in the children who survive her, and upon the death of one of the surviving children, his interest becomes payable to his executor or ad- ministrator (62). See cases in (84). The question of the rights of the beneficiaries also arises where the policy has been wrongfully surrendered to the company, and a new policy issued in substitution of the old one. In cases of this nature, the rights of the beneficiaries of the original policy are not affected (63), unless there has been a valid change of the beneficiary in the meantime. The question now arises: can the rights or in- Possession of policy or certifi- cate does not give beneficiary a vested interest. Vested rights of minors surrender of policy. Policies to "wife and, in the event of her prior death, to the children." Interests vested, but conditional. Death of wife. Death of child. Surrender of policy in which the beneficiary has a vested interest. CHANGE OF BENEFICIARY. IN MUTUAL BENEFIT INSURANCE. Indiana Law. IN REGULAR LIFE INSURANCE. The Change of Beneficiary Clause. Regular Life Policy. terests of a beneficiary be affected by acts or oc- currences following, in point of time, the designa- tion of such beneficiary ? So general a query can only be answered by deal- ing separately with the various contingencies which may arise, eliminating as not within the direct scope of the present discussion, all cases in which the insurer is not liable upon the contract. We come first to the questions involving the right to change the beneficiary. The power of making a change of beneficiary is almost always given to the member of a mutual benefit society by express provision in the charter, constitution, or by-laws (64), and in many of the States, this right is also given to the members of such societies by express statutory provision (65). In Section 112 of the Indiana Insurance Laws, we find a provision giving the same right to policyholders in a legal reserve company. Almost all of the regular life insurance companies now doing business in this country will write policies allowing the insured ta make a change of beneficiary. Some companies insert the "Change of Beneficiary Clause" in all their policies ; others make inquiry at the time the insurance is applied for, whether the insured de- sires to reserve the right to change the beneficiary, and still other companies do not give the insured such right, unless he makes an express demand to have this provision inserted in his contract. The "Change of Beneficiary Clause" in regular life in- surance policies, provides in substance, that the in- sured may at any time, if the policy is not then as- signed, change the beneficiary, by forwarding his policy to the home office of the company with a 28 written request for such change, and that the change will take effect upon the endorsement thereof upon the policy by the company, and with- out the consent of the then beneficiary. This clause does not differ materially in the contracts of the dif- ferent companies, the only difference being that some companies require the request for the change to be "duly acknowledged/' and in some policies, the consent of one of the officers is expressly re- quired. The method of changing a beneficiary of a mutual benefit certificate is set forth in the rules and by-laws of the association, supplemented by statutory provisions. The usual requirements of mutual benefit societies are, that the member desir ing to make a change shall endorse upon his cer- tificate a revocation of the old designation, and a request that the benefits thereafter be payable to the proposed beneficiary. This endorsement is gen- erally required to be attested by the secretary of the lodge to which the insured belongs, and the certifi- cate is then forwarded to the officers of the Su- preme Lodge, who cancel the old certificate and issue a new one, payable as requested. For the issuance of a new certificate, a small fee is usually required. In some few benefit societies, the insured member has only the right to apportion the fund, and in such cases there can be no change of bene- ficiary (66) ; nor can such change be made, where it is prohibited, either by express provision in the certificate, or by provisions to the same effect in the charter, constitution or by-laws (67). While there may appear to be but little differ- ence between a regular life insurance policy and a IN MUTUAL BENEFIT INSURANCE. Usual method of changing , the beneficiary. When no change can be made: 1. Where mem- ber can only apportion. 2. Where change is pro- hibited. 29 Membership in mutual benefit society gives member the right to change beneficiary. No vested interest. "CHANGE OF BENEFICIARY CLAUSE" OF REGULAR LIFE INSURANCE CONTRACTS. contract of mutual benefit insurance, a closer study will disclose that the rights of beneficiaries differ widely in these two classes of life insurance. Thus, it has been held with substantial unanimity, that membership in a mutual benefit society confers upon the member the right to change his designa- tion of a beneficiary, and that the beneficiaries have no vested interest in the benefit fund (68). Just why there should be this difference from regular life insurance, in which the rights of the bene- ficiary are vested, is somewhat difficult to deter- mine. Mutual benefit insurance is often referred to as "the poor man's insurance/' for while the bene- fits are usually small, the dues and assessments paid barely cover the current cost of the protection. The purpose of these societies is to provide a fund payable to the family or dependents of the member, and considering the obvious hardships which might arise from a change in the domestic relations, such as the death of the wife, the emancipation of some of the children, or the re-marriage of the member, the courts became eager to construe the contract so as to give to the member the right, any time, and without the consent of the beneficiary, to make a new designation of those to whom the benefits should be payable. Life insurance companies, also realizing the hardships of an insurance contract which gives to the beneficiary a right indefeasable by any act of the insured, have within the last decade, inserted in their policy contracts, either as a matter of course or at the request of the insured, the "Change of Beneficiary Clause," thus giving the insured the right to designate a new beneficiary without the 30 consent of any prior beneficiary (69). While, in its short period of existence, this clause has often been before the courts for adjudication, there are still many points of law as yet undecided, and it is only by a study of the decisions in the mutual bene- fit cases that we are able to judge what position the courts will take when these questions come before them. Some eminent insurance experts have con- tended that a policy containing the clause under discussion, is in effect, a policy payable to the estate of the insured, regardless of who the beneficiary may be, and hence, can be reached by the creditors of the insured, in spite of the "Wife's Policy Laws," (See Volume VII., Nos. 26 and 27, Trans- actions, Actuarial Society of America.) Such con- f i 's~+* C T~* /* /"**1 J> struction of the "Change of Beneficiary Clause is clearly wrong. Wife's Policy Laws were enacted for the protec- tion of wives and children, and the courts of this country have so strong a desire to protect the weak and defenceless, that they will give these laws a strict and literal construction, a construction which must, and will, give to the beneficiaries the full statutory protection in all policies, those containing a "Change of Beneficiary Clause," as well as those which do not contain the provision. The rights of a beneficiary under a contract containing such a clause, amount to more than a mere expectancy; they are rights which are vested, and are subject only to be defeated by an exercise, by the insured, of his power to make a change. The provisions of the charter, constitution, by- laws, or contract, prescribing a certain method by which the beneficiary may be changed, must be Effect of Change of "Wife's Policy." Compliance by qu { remen t s to change. Absence of requirements. "By complying with the laws" of the association. Change of By-laws. Consent of insurer. Refusal of Consent. Waiver, by insurer, of strict com- pliance. Where policy or certificate is lost or cannot be surrendered; or Where insured has done all in his power, but dies before insurer changes the beneficiary. complied with, as far as possible (70), but in the absence of any prescribed method, the change may be made in any manner showing the intent to make the change (71). Many certificates contain a clause allowing a member to change the beneficiary by "complying with the laws" of the association, and in order to make an effective and valid change, the insured must comply with the laws existing at the time the change was made (72), for there is no doubt that an incorporated society has the inherent right to amend, repeal, alter or suspend its by-laws and thus alter the required method of changing the beneficiary. Where the rules require the consent of the insurer to a proposed change of beneficiary, such consent is usually given, as a matter of course, but a refusal of such consent, based upon reason- able grounds, will bar a recovery by the new bene- ficiary (73). A strict compliance with the rules of the organization may be waived by the insurer, and where a change has thus been made, the original beneficiary will not be heard to complain that the rules were not complied with (74). It is not at all unusual for the insured to find himself in a position where he cannot comply with the rules or by-laws, and the insurer is unwilling to waive strict compliance. The certificate or policy may be lost, or in the possession of the beneficiary who refuses to part with it, or the insured may do all in his power to make the change, but may die before the change is actually made by the company or society. In cases of this kind a court of equity will give relief, and decree that to be done which should have been done, and act as if the change had, in fact, been completed (75), but in no case will this protection be extended where the insured has wilfully or negligently omitted to take one of the required steps (76). Although in many respects a change of bene- ficiary is analogous to a testamentary act, still it has been held immaterial, so far as the original bene- ficiary is concerned, that the change was brought about by persuasion, undue influence or even fraud (77) and a careful consideration will show that a case of this nature is not at ail analogous to an at- tempt to contest a will upon the same grounds. This discussion leads to the query: Can the beneficiary be changed by the last will and testa- ment of the insured ? Where the rules or by-laws of the organization prescribe the method by which the change shall be made and do not include the right of disposition by will, the insured is bound by such regulations, and an attempt to change the beneficiary by will is in- operative (78) ; but where no method has been pre- scribed as to how the change of beneficiary may be made, or where no beneficiary has been previously designated, the appointment by the insured, in his will, of a person to whom the fund shall be pay- able, will be construed as a valid change or desig- nation of beneficiary (79). Ordinarily, the insured cannot defeat the interest of a beneficiary under a contract of life insurance where there is no change of beneficiary clause, but there is one exception to this general statement, known as the Wisconsin rule. In this State it has been held, that one who has procured a policy of life insurance on his own life, for the benefit of another, and has paid the premiums thereon, may Fraud or undue influence. CHANGE OF BENEFICIARY WILL. BY When insured cannot make change by will. When insured can make change by will. Wisconsin rule when in- sured has abso- lute control over policy. 33 OF BENEFICIARY PRIOR TO THAT OF INSURED. In Mutual Benefit Insurance. dispose of the insurance, by will or otherwise, to the exclusion of the beneficiary named in the policy, and the fact that the change was made in the life- time of the beneficiary, does not affect this rule (80). The rule does not, however, apply to statu- tory wife's policies. It has been contended that the right to change passes to the assignee, under an absolute assign- ment; that some distinction should be made be- tween policies in which the change of beneficiary clause has been inserted at the request of the in- sured, and policies where the clause is inserted by the company as a matter of course in all policies ; and that the interest of a beneficiary under a policy containing this clause differs widely from the inter- est of a beneficiary of a mutual benefit certificate. These questions have not, as yet, been squarely be- fore the courts, but the opinion would seem strongly in favor of these contentions. Another question for consideration is, what effect the death of a beneficiary prior to that of the in- sured, may have on the payment of the proceeds and the rights and interest of such a beneficiary. It is almost universally held, that where the bene- ficiary of a mutual benefit certificate dies prior to the insured, the benefit fund does not, on the sub- sequent death of the member, go to the personal representatives of the beneficiary (81). This is due to the character of the organization and to hold otherwise would be not only contrary to the intent and purpose of the contract, but would also, in many cases, allow the proceeds to be paid to per- sons, who, under the laws of the society, could not have been made beneficiaries in the first instance. 34 In regular life insurance, where these reasons do In Regular not exist, it is firmly settled that upon the death of Li f e the beneficiary, his interest passes to his adminis- trator or executor, unless there be a provision in the policy to the contrary (82). There are a few Death of wife cases (83), which at first glance, may seem to be beneficiary. contrary to this general principle. The cases re- ferred to are those in which the policy was payable to the wife of the insured, and the wife predeceased her husband. The courts here held that on the death of the wife, her interest passed to her hus- band, not by reason of any lack of a vested interest in her, but because the chose in action belonged, at the death of the wife, to her husband, and these de- cisions will be followed wherever this common law right of the husband has not been changed by stat- ute. It was further held in 85 N. Y., 593, that the common law right of survivorship in the husband, was not affected by the statutes concerning insur- ance on the lives of husbands for the benefit of their wives. Where a policy is payable to the wife, and in the Policy payable event of her prior death, to the children of the in- to "wife and, in sured, the children have merely an interest condi- JJjL^JJJiJ^J*' tional upon the death of their mother prior to that tlie Children." of the insured. Upon the death of the mother prior to the death of the insured only such children as Death f wi fe- survive her are entitled to share in the proceeds, Death of child. and any child which may have predeceased the mother, loses, by its death, all right, title and inter - est in the insurance fund, and no claim to the pro- ceeds can be maintained by its personal repre- sentatives (61), (62), (84). If, on the other hand, the wife of the insured survived him, she would be 35 JOINT BENE- FICIARIES. Death of one. In Mutual Benefit Insurance. In Regular Life Insurance. Marriage of insured. MURDER OF INSURED BY THE BENEFICIARY. entitled to the entire proceeds for the condition pre- cedent, upon which the rights of the children to re- ceive the proceeds depended, had never occurred. Suppose we have a life insurance contract in which there are two, or more, beneficiaries. What would be the effect of the death of one of them ? In the law of mutual benefit insurance, this query has been answered by saying that the rights of the beneficiaries are similar to a joint tenancy with the right of survivorship; in other words, that upon the death of one of the beneficiaries prior to that of the insured, his interest goes to the surviving bene- ficiary or beneficiaries (85). But in the case of a regular life policy, the situation is entirely different, for here the beneficiaries take a vested interest as tenants in common (86) ; and while there has as yet been no adjudication on this question where the policy contained a change of beneficiary clause, the same conclusion would be reached, for the interest of such beneficiaries must be treated as vested, sub- ject only to be defeated by a change. Marriage of the insured after the issuance of a mutual benefit certificate, will not of itself, defeat the rights which the then beneficiary may have (87), unless by statute, charter or by-laws, the wife, or wife and children, are entitled to the pro- ceeds (88). Murder of the insured by a beneficiary or as- signee, will not ordinarily affect the liability of the insurer upon the contract; but on the ground of public policy, the funds will not be paid to the mur- derer or to any persons claiming under him (89). If the insurer be a mutual benefit society, the pro- ceeds will be paid to the personal representatives of 36 the insured, for the benefit of those who would have been entitled thereto, if no designation of bene- ficiary had been made, excluding, of course, the murderer and those claiming under him. If the contract is one of regular life insurance, the per- sonal representatives of the insured are entitled to recover the proceeds and hold the money received as a part of the insured's estate. 37 ASSIGNMENT. Definition. Consideration. Assignment of entire chose in action. Assignment of a part. ASSIGNABILITY OF A LIFE INSUR- ANCE CONTRACT. Regular life insurance policy. Mutual Benefit Certificate. An assignment is a transfer, or making over, of the whole of any property, real or personal, in pos- session or in action, or of any estate or right therein. An assignment of the whole of any property, is the creation of an irrevocable power of attorney and no consideration is required. The assignment of a part only, will be upheld in equity (90), but as it is the creation of an equitable charge, consideration is necessary. At common law, a contract of life insurance could not be assigned so as to give the assignee any rights thereunder in a court of law ; but equity recognized the assignment, and would compel the assignor to permit the use of his name in an action to recover for the benefit of an as- signee. At the present time, the assignee may bring his action at law, in the name of the assignor; and in many States, the assignee may even sue in his own name, if the entire chose in action has been assigned. Where, however, the assignor refuses to allow his name to be used, or where but a part of the chose in action has been assigned, the assignee must go into equity. Regular life insurance policies are assignable choses in action (91). Mutual benefit certificates are also assignable, but, as a rule, no assignment of the certificate can be made prior to the death of the insured, to any person not within the class of persons eligible to beneficiaryship (92). Assignments are governed by the laws of the place where they are made (93), irrespective of the place where the contract of insurance was consum- mated. While the assignment of life insurance contracts is generally governed by the rules applying to the assignment of all choses in action, there is present an additional element insurable interest. It is the rule in most States (94), that if the transaction is bona fide, the assignment of the interest in a valid contract of insurance is valid, although made to one who has no insurable interest in the life of the in- sured, but there are other States (95) in which it is held that the assignee must always have an in- surable interest, or the assignment will be invalid. The jurisdictions in which the assignee is required to have an insurable interest, have very likely been governed by the cases of Warnock vs. Davis and Cammack vs. Lewis, in the United States Supreme Court, which were instances of clearly wagering transactions, and the assignments were justly con- demned. The conclusion in both of these cases would have been reached in the courts throughout the Union, on a similar statement of facts ; but to follow the conclusions reached in these two cases, without regard to the particular facts in each case- cannot but lead to error. The mere fact that an assignee, without insurable interest, has a greater interest in the death than in the life of the insured, is of itself, no reason why the assignment should be condemned, for there are numerous instances in which the law has upheld other transactions in What law Insurable Interest. When unnecessary. Contrary decisions. 39 Termination of assignee's insurable interest. Form of words used. Notice to insurer. which the interest of one person depended upon the death of the other. Whether the assignment is a mere cover for a wager, may be determined by ascertaining whether the policy was taken out with the intention of as- signing it as soon as it was issued; by whom the premiums had been paid before, and by whom they will be paid after the assignment; by whom (bene- ficiary or insured) the assignment was made; the relations of the parties ; but until a wagering trans- action is shown there is no reason why any court should condemn an assignment merely on the ground that the assignee had no insurable interest. Lack of insurable interest in the assignee will not, in the absence of express provision, avoid the con- tract. Termination of the assignee's insurable interest will not invalidate the assignment (96), but the wording of the assignment may prevent the as- signee from holding as his own, any part of the proceeds, in the event of the termination of such interest. In making an assignment, no particular form of words need be used, so long as a clear intention to assign is shown (97). To complete the assignment of a life insurance contract the insurer should be informed thereof, for until notified of the assignment, the insurer is en- titled to regard the assignor as the owner, and he may accept a release from him, thus barring the right of the assignee against the insurer. A notice to the insurer is also advisable, in view of the fact that by so doing, the assignee is entitled under the 40 New York Statute, to notice of due date of pre- miums. Where the assignment is in writing, delivery of Delivery of the policy is not absolutely necessary to validate policy or the assignment (98), but the assignment must, in such cases, be delivered. Even a writing is not . necessary, for the policy may be transferred by Gift. parol, if accompanied by delivery (99). Thus, the policy may be the subject of a gift, either causa mortis or inter vivos (100). Where the policy requires the consent of the in- Consent of surer to an assignment, the parties to the assign- insurer. ment cannot object because such consent was not obtained (101). While there is a conflict of decis- ions on the right of the insurer to object to an as- signment on the ground that its consent, as re- quired by the contract, had not been obtained, it is difficult to see how the assignment of the chose in action can be prevented by a clause injected into the policy by the insurer for his own protection. In the absence of a condition that assignment of the policy or certificate will render it void, the assignee will be entitled to the proceeds of the policy (102) ; in the event of the insurer's refusing to pay to the assignee, an action could be brought in the name of the assignor, and the insurer could not set up as a defence that the action was brought for the benefit of the assignee. An attempt by the insurer to prescribe how an assignment shall or shall not be made is futile, in so far as it seeks to prevent the assignee from being entitled to the proceeds. Nearly all change of beneficiary clauses give the ^SeT?*** insured the right to make change of beneficiary then assigned/ "provided that the policy is not then assigned" or words to the same effect. The result of the inser- tion of this condition is that where the policy has been assigned, the insured cannot make any change of beneficiary. This condition, however, refers only to the time when the request for a change is made. In other words, if the policy has been assigned in the past, but there has been a release or reassignment to the original assignor before the request for a change of beneficiary is made, such request must be granted by the insur- ance company unless there is some other reason for a refusal. In such case, the release or reassign- ment has the effect of placing all the persons inter- ested in exactly the same position in which they were before the assignment, and the policy may be dealt with as if no assignment had ever been made. The reassignment by the original assignee to the original assignor cannot be considered an assignment within the meaning of the change of beneficiary clause. The question now arises: what effect will an assignment by a third party beneficiary have upon the right of the insured to make a change of beneficiary where the policy contains the condition above mentioned? This condition is inserted in the change of bene- ficiary clause for the protection of the insurance company, and if the beneficiary has assigned his interest in the policy, the company can, by virtue of this condition, refuse any request for a change of beneficiary during the existence of the assign- ment. The condition may, however, be waived by the company and the insured may then make a valid change and thus cut off all the rights which 42 the assignee of the beneficiarv took under the as- signment. The beneficiary's rights and interest were subject to the right of the insured to make, at any time and without the consent of the bene- ficiary, a change of beneficiary, and the assignee of the beneficiary has no greater rights and interest in the policy than his assignor had. Where the change of beneficiary clause makes no reference to assignments, or where the insurance company has waived its right to object, which it had under a clause similar to the one under discussion, the rights of an assignee of the insured cannot be de- feated by an attempt on the part of the insured and the company to make a change of beneficiary. No. valid change will be effected even though the in- sured and the company have done all in their power to make a change of beneficiary, for the as- signee's rights under the assignment are vested and cannot be defeated by any acts on the part of the insured and the insurance company. In order to make an absolute assignment, all per- Absolute sons having an interest in the policy must join in assignment the assignment ; an assignment will convey only *rf ^ ust such rights and interest as the assignor may have. jm The insured may assign a policy payable to When insured his estate, or he may assign his interest in ay assign. an endowment policy (103). The beneficiary may Beneficiary also, ordinarily, assign his interest in the policy or may assign. certificate (104), subject of course, to the capacity of the beneficiary to make an assignment. In the absence of statutory prohibition or limita- Wife's policy. tion, if a statute gives to a married woman control A ss { gnmen i b y over her property so that she may transfer the married woman. same, she is authorized, under such power, to trans- 43 Amount of proceeds received by assignee. Where assign- ment is a wagering transaction. Absolute assignment to a creditor. Where creditor may hold entire pro- ceeds. Contrary rule. fer a policy in which she is the beneficiary (105). In some States, however, the right of a wife to as- sign a policy payable to her, is limited in so far that her husband must consent to the assignment; and in cases involving the assignment of policies by married women, careful attention should be paid to the decisions and statutory provisions ap- plicable thereto (106). Ordinarily the absolute assignee of a policy or certificate of insurance, is entitled to the entire pro- ceeds, if the entire chose in action has been as- signed to him. Where, however, the assignment is made to a creditor, there is a conflict of decis- ions. Where the assignment is a wagering trans- action, it is of course void, and the assignee can hold as his own merely the sums advanced by him, and must account to the assignor or his per- sonal representatives for the balance (107). The conflict referred to is in cases where the assignment was a valid one. In New York, and many of the States, it has been held that if an absolute assignment of a policy is made to a cred- itor, the creditor can retain as his own the entire proceeds, even though the debt, with interest, and any premiums which have been paid, amount to a sum smaller than the proceeds of the policy (108). On the other hand, there are jurisdictions which hold that a creditor assignee can hold as his own only so much of the proceeds as is necessary to his indemnity, and that the balance is payable to the assignor or his personal representative (109). There is no justification, on sound legal prin- ciples, for thus turning an absolute assignment into an assignment as collateral security. The assignee creditor is not receiving absolute payment of the debt, with interest, and any premiums which he may have to pay to keep the policv alive, when he takes an assignment of the policv from his debtor. A policy of insurance is not a guarantee that its face value will be paid at its maturity. The in- sured may be executed as a criminal, the assignor, if he is a beneficiary or prior assignee, may murder the insured, the insured may refuse to pay the pre- mium and the assignee may be unable to do so, and the policy may lapse; these, and many other con- ditions may arise, which if they do not entirely divest the assignee of all right to the proceeds, may reduce the proceeds to a sum less than the amount of the debt. A creditor taking an assignment of a policy of insurance from his debtor is, in effect, engaging in a legitimate speculation, and as he takes with the assignment its burdens, he should also be entitled to the entire benefits thereunder. If it is the desire of the assignor to limit the right of the assignee to the amount of the debt, let him so word the assign- ment that it will have that effect. An assignment to the creditor "as his interest may appear," would limit the right of the assignee to such a part of the proceeds as might be necessary to his indemnity. It has been held that an assignment, absolute in Assignment form, may be shown by extrinsic evidence to have as collateral been, in fact, as collateral security (no), and amount under a collateral assignment, the assignee may hold as his own, only the amount of the debt, plus interest and expenses (in). But where a court gives to an assignment, absolute in fact as well as in form, the same effect that it would give to an 45 Fraud or Undue Influence. Assignment in fraud of creditors. Murder of insured by assignee, or a predecessor in interest. assignment as collateral, it is difficult to see either justice, or a recognition of sound legal principles in such decision. An assignment of the beneficial interest in a life insurance contract may be avoided, if it has been procured through the use of fraud or undue influ- ence (112), or if it has been made in fraud of cred- itors (113). Murder of the insured by the as- signee, or by one through whom he takes his inter- est, does not avoid the assignment, but on the grounds of public policy, the murderer or those claiming under him will not be entitled to any part of the proceeds, which will go to the insured's per- sonal representatives (89) ; or, in the case of mutual benefit insurance, to the insured's personal representatives for the benefit of those (exclusive of the murderer and those claiming under him), who would have received the proceeds had no bene- ficiary been designated. Bearing in mind that there are in force at the present time in the United States more than fifteen billions of dollars of life insurance, and that the army of prudent individuals who have availed themselves of the benefits of life insurance is in- creasing rapidly, we cannot fail to realize the enormous interests involved. In a large number of the life insurance contracts now in force, there will be no question as to whom the proceeds shall be paid at the maturity of the policy or certificate, but there are also a large num- ber of life insurance contracts which will involve, at or before their maturity, the questions : First: To whom shall the proceeds be paid? and Second: If the proceeds are payable to more than one person, how shall they be apportioned? and, though no general rule of construction or in- terpretation can be laid down, an effort has been made to show what position the courts have taken in the past regarding these questions, and what po- sition they will be likely to take in the future. 47 FORMS OF ASSIGNMENT. ABSOLUTE ASSIGNMENT. For Value Received hereby assign and trans- fer unto of the Policy of Insurance known as No , issued by the LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, upon the life of , of , and all dividend, benefit, and advantage to be had or derived therefrom, subject to the conditions of the said Policy. Witness hand and seal , this r. .day of nineteen hundred State of 1 County of f On this day of , 190 , before me personally came to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing assignment, and acknowledged that. . . .executed the same. ABSOLUTE ASSIGNMENT. For Value Received, I hereby assign, transfer, and set over all my right, title and interest in Policy No issued on the life of by (Full Name) LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, to of and I do also for myself, my executors and administrators, guarantee the validity and sufficiency of the foregoing as- signment to the above named assignee, h executors, ad- ministrators, and assigns, and their title to the said Policy will forever warrant and defend. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal, at this day of i [SEAL] (Full Name) [SEAL] (Full Name) In presence of 49 ABSOLUTE ASSIGNMENT WITH POWER OF ATTORNEY. For Value Received, hereby transfer, assign, and set over unto and executors, administrators or assigns, all right, title, and interest in Policy of Insurance issued by Company, No dated ., and all advantages to be derived therefrom. Furthermore, hereby constitute the above-named assignee or lawful substitute, .lawful attor- ney for and in name to collect from the above-named Company any and all moneys which, under said policy, shall become owing thereon, whether for divi- dends, capital sum insured, or otherwise, and to acquit said Company therefor as fully as could in person do or accomplish any or all of the acts aforesaid. Witness hand and seal , this day of 19 [L.S.] [L.S.] Sealed and delivered in the presence of ASSIGNMENT OF LIFE INTEREST IN ENDOWMENT POLICY. For Value Received, I hereby assign the benefits pay- able at my death, in the event of its happening prior to the expiration of the endowment period, under Policy No , issued by the Insurance Company of , with all the proceeds thereof and all sums of money, interest, benefit and advantages what- soever accrued and to accrue thereunder unto , residing at , and I do also for myself, my executors, administrators or assigns, guarantee the validity and suffi- ciency of this assignment to the above-named assignee, executors, administrators or assigns, and title to the contingent interest in said Policy above set forth will forever warrant and defend. State of.. County of. On this day of , 19 , before me personally came to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing assignment and acknowledged that. . . .executed the same. [SEAL] ASSIGNMENT, CONDITIONAL UPON DEATH PRIOR TO MATURITY OF POLICY AND THE SURVIVAL OF THE ASSIGNEE. For Value Received, I hereby transfer, assign, and set over unto and assigns, all my right, title and interest in Policy of Insurance issued by Company, No dated i , and all advantages to be derived therefrom: Provided, the said Policy shall become payable by reason of my death prior to the date when the endowment would have matured: and Provided also that the said assignee shall then sur- vive me, otherwise all right, title and interest in the said Policy is to revert to me, as fully as if this Assignment had never been made. Witness my hand and seal, this day of 19 Sealed and ) delivered in the > [L. s.] presence of ) ASSIGNMENT IN CONSIDERATION OF LOVE AND AFFECTION CONDITIONAL UPON SURVIVAL OF ASSIGNEE. In Consideration of natural love and affection, and of other valuable considerations, I, insured in and by a policy or contract of insurance, num- bered and issued by LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, do hereby assign and transfer unto my and for sole use and benefit, all my right, title and interest in and to said policy, or contract of insurance, meaning thereby to convey all the rights and benefits that would accrue if said assignee was actually named in said policy or contract of insurance as the beneficiary. I hereby guarantee the validity and sufficiency of this assignment to the above named assignee, subject to the terms and conditions of said policy, or contract of insur- ance, and authorize the said Company to pay any remain- ing balance of proceeds thereof, at its termination, to the said assignee, without the payment to me of any further consideration. Provided, however, and this assignment is made upon the express condition, that if the said insured shall sur- vive the said assignee or shall be living at the expiration of the endowment period (if such period is named in the said policy or contract), then this assignment shall there- upon cease and determine, and all interest therein shall re- vert to and vest in the said assignor, executors, administrators or assigns. Witness hand and seal this day of A. D. 190. . . [L. s.] [L. s.] State of I cc County of J Be It Known that on the day of A. D. 19. ., before me, a Notary Public in and for the said County, in the State aforesaid, duly commissioned and sworn, personally came and appeared of legal age, to me personally known, and known to me to be the same person described in, and who exe- cuted the foregoing instrument, and to me acknowl- edged the same to be free act and deed. In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name, and affixed my seal of office, the day and year last above written. 53 ASSIGNMENT, CONDITIONAL UPON THE SURVIVAL OF THE ASSIGNEE. For Value Received, I hereby transfer, assign, and set over unto and assigns, all my right, title and interest in Policy of Insurance issued by Company, No dated i , and all ad- vantages to be derived therefrom, provided the said as- signee should survive me, otherwise all right, title and in- terest in the said Policy is to revert to me, as fully as if this Assignment had never been made. Witness my hand and seal, this day of 19. .. Sealed and delivered in presence of ) [L. s.] ASSIGNMENT TO SECURE CREDITOR. I, , hereby assign the within Policy of Life Insurance No , of the LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, bearing date to to secure the payment of In case of the death of the said assignor prior to the payment of the above described obligation, then said obli- gation shall be paid out of the proceeds of the said life in- surance policy, the remainder of said proceeds to be paid to the beneficiary named in said policy, or to the estate of the said assignor, as provided therein. Witness, The hand of the said assignor this day of , 190. . ss. (Witness.) 54 ASSIGN MENT COLLATERAL. For Value Received, hereby assign to , of all right, title, and interest in Policy No , issued by the LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, together with all right, title, and interest in all distributions made and declared, or to be made and declared, to or under said Policy (except that such distributions may be used in pay- ment of premiums by the insured), to be held as collateral security for the amount of demands, sub- sisting against at de- cease, with the right to collect the same at the maturity of the Policy, and also to surrender the same at any anni- versary of issue at option to the said Insur- ance Company, and receive the cash surrender value there- of, and to pay the balance, if any, after payment of said indebtedness, to the persons entitled thereto, under the terms of the Policy. The payment of said Policy, or the cash surrender value thereof, to said and receipt for the same, shall be a full dis- charge and release to said Insurance Company of all claims under said Policy ; and said Insurance Company shall not be bound in any way to see to the ap- plication of the proceeds of said Policy. Witness hand and seal at this day of 190 . [L. S.] In presence of 55 ASSIGNMENT AS COLLATERAL SECURITY. For Value Received hereby assign and trans- fer unto of , as collateral for a loan of dollars ($ ) with interest, all right, title and interest in and to Policy numbered issued by the LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, upon the life of of , subject to all the conditions of said policy, it being understood, how- ever, that all distributions of surplus apportioned to this policy may be paid to or used for the benefit of the in- sured. The insured waives, during the life of this assignment, the right (if any there be), reserved in said policy to make change of beneficiary. And said Company is authorized, on maturity of said policy, to deduct from the proceeds thereof, the amount of the indebtedness hereby secured and to pay the same to the Asignee ; the balance of said policy, if any remain, to be payable as designated therein. In case of default in the payment of the indebtedness hereby secured, the Company may, upon the demand, and the sole signature of the Assignee to the surrender re- ceipt, pay and satisfy the claim of the Assignee from out of the cash surrender value of said policy, according to the Company's general rules then in use ; the balance of said value, if any remain, to be paid to , which payment shall be in full satisfaction of said policy. In Witness Whereof, have hereunto set hand and seal , this day of 19 L. s. L. S. L. S. In presence of ASSIGNMENT COLLATERAL, WITH POWER OF ATTORNEY. For Value Received, hereby transfer, assign, and set over unto and executors, administrators or assigns, all right, title, and interest in Policy of Insur- ance issued by , No , dated i , and all advantages to be de- rived therefrom, as a collateral security for indebtedness. Furthermore, hereby constitute the above- named assignee or lawful substitute lawful attorney for and in name to collect from the above-named Company any and all moneys which, under said policy, shall become owing thereon, whether for dividends, capital sum insured, or otherwise, and to acquit said Company therefor as fully as could in person do or accomplish any or all of the acts aforesaid. Witness hand and seal , this day of 19. [L. s.] [L. s.] Sealed and delivered in presence of 57 DISCHARGE OF ASSIGNMENT. In consideration of full payment, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and of other valuable consider- ations, I hereby release all right, title and interest in and to the policy or contract of insurance known as issued by LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and the assignment executed is hereby fully discharged. Witness my hand and seal this day of A. D. 190 . [SEAL] State of I County of J ss. Be It Known that on the day of A. D., 190 , before me, a Notary Public in and for the said County in the State aforesaid, duly commissioned and sworn, per- sonally came and appeared of lawful age, to me personally known, and known to me to be the person described in, and who executed the foregoing instrument, and to me acknowledged the same to be free act and deed. In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name, and affixed my seal of office, the day and year last above written. RELEASE OF AN ASSIGNMENT. Whereas, By a certain assignment, dated day of , Policy No issued by on the life of was transferred to the undersigned, as a collateral security for indebtedness. This is to Certify, That the said indebtedness has been paid in full, and the said Policy and all claims thereunder are hereby restored to the assignor or assignors as of their former rights and interests as they existed at the making of such assignment, and such rights and interests are here- by acknowledged to have reverted to them as if the above- mentioned assignment had not been made. Witness hand and seal , this day of one thousand nine hundred and [L.8. [L. s. Sealed and delivered in presence of RE-ASSIGNMENT OF POLICY. For valuable consideration, the receipt whereof is here- by acknowledged, hereby re-assign and re-trans- fer unto of of all right, title and interest in and to Policy No issued by the Insurance Com- pany, to hold the same unto the said absolutely freed and discharged from the assignment heretofore made to Witness hand and seal at , this day of A. D., 19 . [SEAL] [SEAL] Signed, sealed and delivered in presence of 59 TABLE OF CASES .CITED. 1 Beneficiary may sue on contract. Cal Kumle vs. Grand Lodge, 42 Pac., 634. Mass Nims vs. Ford, 35 N. E., 100 " Wright vs. Vermont Life, 41 N. E., 303. Md Smith vs. B. & O. Ry. Co., 32 Atl., 181. R. I Miunroe vs. Providence Assn., 34 Atl., 149. Tex Pac. Mut L. Ins. Co. vs. Williams, 79 633; 15 S. W., 478. 2 Mere relationship does not give insurable interest. Eng Reed vs. Royal Ex. Ass. Co., Peake Add. C.,7O. " Lucena vs. Crawford, 2 Bos. & P. N. R., 270, " Halford vs. Kymer, 10 Barn. & C, 724. " Hebdon vs. West, 3 Best. & S., 579. " Shilling vs. Ace. Death Co., 27 L. J. Ex., 16. " Ex parte Houghton, 17 Ves., 252. Ind Elkhardt vs. Houghton, 103 Ind., 286. Mass Forbes vs. Amer. Mut., 15 Gray, 249. " Lord vs. Dall, 12 Mass., 115. Mo Chisholm vs. Nat. Life, 52 Mo., 213. N. C Trinity College vs. Travelers, 113 N. C, 244; 18 S. E., 175- N. Y Gratton vs. Nat. Ins. Co., 15 Hun, 74. Pa Keystone Mut. vs. Norris, 115 Pa. St., 466. " Reserve Mut. vs. Kane, 81 Pa. St., 154. 11 Appeal of Corson, 113 Pa. St., 438. " United Ben. Soc. vs. McDonald, 122 Pa. St., 324- U. S Warnock vs. Davis, 104 U. S., 779. 60 3 Insurable interest unnecessary at Common Law. Eng Dalby vs. India Ass. Co., 15 Com. B., 365, 386. Crawford vs. Hunter, 8 Term. Rep., 23. " Cousins vs. Nantes, 3 Taunt., 522. " Dean vs. Dicker, 2 Str., 1250. Irish Schweiger vs. Magee, Cook & Ale., 182. " Shannon vs. Nugent, Hayes, 536. Md Rittler vs. Smith, 70 Md., 261. Mo Chisholm vs. Nat. Ins. Co., 52 Mo., 213. N. J De Ronga vs. Elliott, 23 N. J. Eq., 486, 492. " Trenton Mut. vs. Tohnson, 4 Zabr., 576. " Vivas vs. Sup. Lodge, 52 N. J. L., 469. N. Y Abbott vs. Sebor, 3 Johns. Cas., 39. " Buchanan vs. Ocean Ins. Co., 6 Cow., 331. 4 Beneficiary must have insurable interest, if policy not taken out by the insured. Ill Guardian Ins. Co. vs. Hogan, 80 111., 36. Ind Amick vs. .Butler, HI Ind., 578; 12 N. E., 518. " Prudential vs. Jenkins, 43 N. E., 1056. " Prudential vs. Hunn, 52 N. K, 772. Ky Settle vs. Hill, 5 Ky. L. R., 691. La Rombach vs. Piedmont Co., 35 La. An., 233. Me Mitchel vs. Union Life, 45 Me., 104. Mich Met. Life vs. O'Brien, 92 Mich., 584; 52 N. W., 1012. Mo Singleton vs. St. Louis Mut, 66 Mo., 63. " Whitmore vs. Sup. Lodge, 100 Mo., 36 ; 13 S. W., 495- N. C Burbage vs. Windley, 108 N. C, 357; 12 S. E., *7S- " Powel vs. Mut. Ben., 31 S. E., 381. N. Y. . . Ruse vs. Mut. Ben., 23 N. Y., 516. Pa Stoner vs. Line, 16 W. N. C, 187. Fed Brockway vs. Mut. Ben., 9 Fed., 249. Eng Worthington vs. Curtis, I Ch. Div., 419. " Howard vs. Refuge F. Soc., 54 L. T., 644. See also: Art. i, Sec. 55, N. Y. Ins. Law. 61 5 Where insured takes out the insurance, Beneficiary need have no insurable interest. Col Goodrich vs. Treat, 3 Col., 408. Conn Lemon vs. Phoenix Mut, 38 Conn., 294. " Allen vs. Hartford Life, 45 At, 955. D. C U. S. Mut. vs. Hodgkin, 4 App. D. C, 516. Fed Fidelity Mut. vs. Jeffords, 107 Fed., 402 (Ga.) " Robinson vs. U. S. Assn., 68 Fed. 825 (Mo.) " Langdon vs. Union Mut., 14 Fed., 272. Ga Equitable vs. Paterson, 41 Ga., 338. " A. O. U. W. vs. Brown, 37 S. E., 890. " Union League vs. Walton, 34 S. E., 317. Ill .... Bloomington Mut vs. Blue, 120 111., 121 ; u N. K, 331- " Johnson vs. Van Epps, no 111., 551. Ind Milner vs. Bowman (dicta), 21 N. E., 1097. " Prov. Life vs. Baum, 29 Ind., 236. " Prudential vs. Hunn, 52 N. E., 772. Mass Campbell vs. N. E. Mut, 98 Mass., 381. " Mut. Life vs. Allen, 138 Mass., 24. Mich Heinlein vs. Imperial Life, 101 Mich., 250; 59 N. W., 615. Miss Murphy vs. Redd, 64 Miss., 614. Mo Masonic Assn. vs. Bunch, 109 Mo., 560; 19 S. W., 25. " Reynolds vs. Prudential, 88 Mo. App., 679. " Van Cleave vs. Union Casualty Co., 82 Mo. App., 668. N. C Albert vs. Mut. Life, 122 N. C, 92; 30 S. R, 327- N. J Vivar vs. Sup. Lodge, 52 N. J.L., 455 ; 20 At, 36. N. Y Olmsted vs. Keyes, 85 N. Y, 593. " .Massey vs. Rochester Soc., 102 N. Y., 523. " Sabin vs. Phinney, 134 N. Y., 423. " Freeman vs. Nat. Ben. Soc., 42 Hun, 252. " Corbett vs. Metropolitan, 55 N. Y. Supp., 775. Ohio Eckel vs. Renner, 41 Ohio St., 232. Pa Cunningham vs. Smith, 70 Pa. St., 450. " Scott vs. Dickson, 108 Pa. St., 6. " Overbeck vs. Overbeck, 155 Pa. St., 5; 25 At, 646. 62 Pa Hall vs. U. S. Life Assn., 154 Pa. St., 29. " Ducksbury vs. Sup. Lodge, 4 Lack. Leg. News, 172. S. C Cross well vs. Conn. Assn., 51 S. C, 103; 28 S. E., 200. Vt Fairchild vs. Northeastern, 51 Vt, 613. See also dicta in : Conn. Mut vs. Schaeffer, 94 U. S., 457. Aetna Life vs. France, 94 U. S., 561. 6 Beneficiary must have insurable interest in all cases. Ind Indiana Ins. Law, Sec. 226. Ill Illinois Ins. Law (Assessment Plan). Ky Coudell vs. Woodward, 29 S. W., 614; 16 Ky. L. R., 742. " Basye ,vs. Adams, 81 Ky., 368. N. C Trinity College vs. Ins. Co., 113 N. C, 244. Mich .Michigan Ins. Law, Par. 7512 (6l). Mo Missouri Ins. Law, Sec. 7926. Pa Pennsylvania Ins. Law, Sec. 2, Act. 1883 (P. L.,8o). 7 Termination of insurable interest does not avoid the contract. Eng Dalby vs. India Ass. Co., 15 C. B., 1850. Iowa Carter vs. Humboldt Ins. Co., 12 la., 287. Mass Mut. Life vs. Allen, 138 Mass., 24. " Wilson vs. Hill, 3 Met, 66. N. Y Rawles vs. Amer. M. L. I. C, 27 N. Y., 282. Ohio Sup. Commandery vs. Everding, 20 Ohio Cir. Ct, 689. Pa Appeal of Corson, 113 Pa. St., 445 ; 6 At, 213. " Lazarus vs. Ins. Co., 19 Pick., 81. " Corson vs. Gamier, 15 Weekly Notes, 451. R. I Mowry vs. Home Life, 9 R. I., 346. U. S Carpenter vs. Ins. Co., 16 Pet., 495. " Connecticut Mut. vs. Schaefer, 94 U. S., 457. " Ins. Co. vs. Bailey, 13 Wall. (U. S.), 616. " Sides vs. Knickerbocker Life, 16 Fed., 650. 63 In Mutual Benefit Insurance the Beneficiary must be within prescribed class; if he is not, the proceeds go to those who would take had no Beneficiary been named. Fed Worley vs. N. W. Mas. Assn., 10 Fed., 227. " Gentry vs. Sup. Lodge, 23 Fed., 718. Ill N. O. P. H. Soc. vs. Wilson, 52 N. E., 41. Palmer vs. Welch, 132 111., 141 ; 23 N. E., 412. Alexander vs. Parker, 144 111., 355; 33 N. E., 183. Grimme vs. Grimme, 64 N. E., 1088. Highland vs. Highland, 109 111., 336. ....... Swift vs. Ry. Conductors' Assn., 96 111., 309. Ind Presbyterian Fund vs. Allen, 106 Ind., 593. Iowa McClure vs. Johnson, 56 la., 620. " Mitchell vs. Grand Lodge, 70 la., 360 ; 30 N. W., 865. Ky Duvall vs. Goodson, 79 Ky., 224. " Basye vs. Adams, 81 Ky., 368. " Gibson vs. Ky. Grangers, 8 Ky. L. R., 520. " Ky. Grangers vs. McGregor, 7 Ky. L. R., 550. " Van Bibber, Admr., vs. Van Bibber, 82 Ky., 347. " Beard vs. Sharpe, 38 S. W., 1057. '' Leaf vs. Leaf, 92 Ky., 166; 17 S. W., 354. Mass Clark vs. Shwartzenberg, 162 Mass., 289; 35 N. E., 855; 4i N. E., 655- Amer. L. of H. vs. Perry, 140 Mass., 580. " Daniels vs. Pratt, 143 Mass., 216; 10 N. E., 166. " Ridge vs. N. E. Mutual, 146 Mass., 286; 16 N. E, 628. " Burns vs. Grand Lodge, 153 Mass., 173; 26 N. E., 443- Sargent vs. Sup. Lodge, 158 Mass., 557; 33 N. E., 650. " Shea vs. Mass. Ben. Assn., 176 Mass., 289; 35 N. E., 855. '* Skillings vs. Mass. Ben. Assn., 146 Mass., 217; 15 N. E., 566. " Rice vs. N. E. M. A. Soc., 146 Mass., 248; 15 N. E., 624. " Smith vs. B. & M. R. R. Assn., 46 N. E., 626. Mich Sup. Lodge vs. Nairn, 60 Mich., 44; 26 N. W., 826. 64 Mich . . . Mich. Mut. vs. Rolfe, 76 Mich., 146. " Lyon vs. Rolfe, 42 N. W., 1094. Mich Wolf vs. Grand Lodge, 102 Mich., 23 ; 60 N. W., 445- Minn Walter vs. Oddfellows, 42 Minn., 20^1 ; 44 N. W., 57- M/iss Carson vs. Vicksburg Bank, 22 So., i. Mo . . ..Keener vs. Grand Lodge, 38 Mo. App., 543. " Expressmen's vs. Lewis, 9 Mo. App., 412. Neb Fisher vs. Donovan, 57 Neb., 361; 77 N. W., 778. N. J Amer. L. of H. vs. Smith, 45 N. J. Eq., 466. " Britton vs. Sup. Council, 46 N. J. Eq., 102 ; 18 At., 675. " Grand Lodge vs. Connolly, 43 At, 286. N. Y Armstrong vs. Warren, 64 N. Y. St., 291. " Simon vs. O'Brien, 87 Hun, 160. " Boasberg vs. Cronan, 9 N. Y. Supp., 664. " Bishop vs. Grand Lodge, 112 N. Y., 627; 20 N. E., 562. " Mlassey vs. Mut. Relief Soc., 102 N. Y., 523 ; 7 N. E., 619. Ohio Nat. Mut. Ben. vs. Gonser, 43 Ohio St., i. " State vs. People's M. B. Assn., 42 Ohio St., 579. " State vs. Moore, 38 Ohio St., 7. ' State vs. Standard Life, 38 Ohio St., 281. " McGuiness vs. Sup. Council, 53 N. E., 54. Pa Arthars vs. Baird, 8 Pa. Co., 67. Texas Schonfield vs. Turner, 75 Tex., 324. Wis. Ballou vs. Gile, 50 Wis., 614. " Dietrich vs. Madison Assn., 45 Wis., 79. " Groth vs. Central Verein. 70 N. W., 80. See also statutes of Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michi- gan, Nebraska, New York, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, Washing- ton and Wisconsin. 9 Charter and By-Laws of Mutual Benefit Society will be liberally construed. Ind Sup. Lodge, K. of P., vs. Schmidt, 98 Ind., 374. 65 Mass Amer. L. of H. vs. Perry, 140 Mass., .580 " Elsey vs. Oddfellows, 142 Mass., 224, Pa ... Maneely vs. Knights of B., 115 Pa. St., 305; 9 Atl., 41. Wis Ballou vs. Gile, 50 Wis., 614. 10 An enlarging Statute need not be formally adopted by the Society. Mass Marsh vs. Supreme Council, 149 Mass., 512 ; 21 N. K, 1070. 11 Restricting Statutes do not affect Certificates in force at the time of passage. Iowa Lindsey vs. Western M. A. Soc., 84 la., 734 ; 50 N. W., 29. N,Y Spencer vs. Grand Lodge, 48 N. Y. Supp., 590. 12 Designation of Beneficiary in Mutual Benefit Insur- ance is an act of a testamentary nature. Col Chartrand vs. Brace, 16 Col., 19 ; 26 Pac., 152. Conn Continental Life vs. Palmer, 42 Conn., 64. D. C Wash. Assn. vs. Wood, 4 Mackey, 19. Ky Duyall vs. Goodson, 79 Ky., 228. Mich Union Mut. vs. Montgomery, 70 Mich., 587; 38 N. W., 588. Mo Nat. Amer. Assn. vs. Kirgin, 28 Mo. App., 80. " Masonic Assn. vs. Bunch, 109 Mo., 560; 19 S. W., 25. N. Y Aiken vs. Mass. Ben. Assn., 13 N. Y. Supp., 579. Tex Thomas vs. Leake, 67 Tex., 469; 3 S. W., 703. 13 Where there is no valid designation of Beneficiary, the Society is liable to no one. Cal Order of M. C. vs. Griest, 76 Cal., 494. Neb Warner vs. Modern Woodmen, 93 N. W., 397. 66 N. H Eastman vs. Prov. Mut Rel. Assn., 62 N. H., N. Y Helienberg vs. I. O. B. B., 94 N. Y., 580. Fed Merely vs. Northwestern Assn., 10 Fed., 237. But see: Mass Hadley vs. Oddfellows, 54 N. K, 345. Mich Wolf vs. Dist. Lodge, 102 Mich., 23; 60 N. W., 445- N. J Martin vs. Golden Star Frat., 18 N. J. L. J., 48. N.Y Bishop vs. Grand Lodge, 112 N. Y., 627. 14 Creditor has Insurable Interest in the life of his Debtor. Cal Curtis vs. Aetna Life, 90 Cal., 245 ; 27 Pac., 211. Conn Fitzgerald vs. Hartford Life, 56 Conn., 116; 13 Atl., 673. Bevin vs. Conn. Ins. Co., 23 Conn., 244. Ill Guardian Mut. Life vs. Hogan, 80 III, 35. Ind Nye vs. A. O. U. W., 36 N. E., 429. " Amick vs. Butler, in Ind., 578; 12 N. E., 518. " Walker vs. Larkins, 127 Ind., 100; 26 N. E., 684- Iowa Belknap vs. Johnson, 86 N. W., 267. La Succession of Hearing, 26 La. Ann., 326. Md Rittler vs. Smith, 70 Md., 261 ; 16 Atl., 890. Mass Morrell vs. Trenton Ins. Co., 10 Cush., 282. Minn Hale vs. Life Indemnity Co., 68 N. W., 182. Mo. Parks vs. Conn. Ins. Co., 26 Mo. App., 511. N. J Trenton Mut. vs. Johnson, 24 N. J. L., 576. N. Y Rawls vs. Amer. Mut. Life, 27 N. Y., 282. Pa .Amer. Co. vs. Robertshaw, 26 Pa. St., 189. ' Cunningham vs. Smith's Exr., 70 Pa. St., 45. ' Shaffer vs. Spangler, 22 Atl., 865. * Ulrich vs. Reinoehl, 22 Atl., 862; 143 Pa. St., 238. R. I Mfowry vs. Home Ins. Co., 9 R. L, 346. S. C Rivers vs. Gregg, 5 Rich. Eq., 274. Tex Equitable vs. Hazelwood, 75 Tex. 338; 12 S. W., 621. 15 Wager policy is void. Beneficiary (if a Creditor) may hold as his own only so much of the proceeds as will pay the debt. Ga Exchange Bank vs. Loh, 104 Ga., 446. Md Rittler vs. Smith, 70 Md., 261. Pa Ulrich vs. Reinoehl, 143 Pa. St., 238. ' Grant vs. Kline, 115 Pa. St., 618. Cooper vs. Schaefer, n Atl., 548. U. S Cammack vs. Lewis, 15 Wall., 643. r Warnock vs. Davis, 94 U. S., 775. 16 Creditor Beneficiary may hold as his own only so much of the proceeds as will pay the debt with expenses and interest. Ga Exchange Bank vs. Loh, 31 S. E., 459; 104 Ga., 446. S. C Rivers vs. Gregg, 5 Rich. Eq., 274. Tex Cheeves vs. Anders, 87 Tex., 287; 28 S. W., 274. " Equitable vs. Hazlewood, 12 S. W., 621. " Goldbaum vs. Blum, 15 S. W., 564. Vt Coon vs. Swan, 30 Vt., 6. U. :S Crotty vs. Union Mut, 12 S. C. Rep., 749. Contra : Ind Amick vs. Butler, in Ind., 578; 12 N. E., 518. " Nye vs. Grand Lodge, 36 N. E., 429. Md Rittler vs. Smith, 70 Md., 261 ; 16 Atl., 890. N. Y Rawles vs. Amer. Mut, 27 N. Y., 282. " Olmsted vs. Keyes, 85 N. Y., 593, 598. Pa Hill vs. U. S. Life, 25 Atl., 771. " Grant vs. Kline, 9 Atl., 150. " Ulrich vs. Reinoehl, 143 Pa. St., 238; 22 Atl., 862. " Shaffer vs. Spangler, 22 Atl., 865. 17 Proceeds of Mutual Benefit Certificate cannot be reached by creditors of insured member. Cal Swift vs. San Fran. Board, 67 Cal., 567. Ky Masonic Mut. vs. Miller, 13 Bush., 489. 68 Md Md. Soc. vs. Clendiner, 44 Md., 429. Mich C. M. Ben. Assn. vs. Priest, 46 Mich., 429. Neb Warner vs. Modern Woodmen, 93 N. W., 397. N. Y Bishop vs. Grand Lodge, 112 N. Y., 627. ' Hellenberg vs. Dist. No. i, 94 N. Y., 580. Ohio Arthur vs. Odd Fellows, 29 Ohio St., 557. " In re Andress, Ohio Leg. News, April 3, 1897. Pa Vollman's Appeal, 92 Pa. St., 50. " Brethren Soc. vs. Grove, 6 Weekly Note Cas., 328. Wis Ballou vs. Gile, 50 Wis., 614. 18 In the following jurisdictions, the proceeds of a mutual benefit certificate are exempt by statute from the claims of creditors of the insured or the creditors of the beneficiary or the creditors of both : California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minpesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Isl- and, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. 19 Creditors of insured cannot reach the proceeds of a regular life insurance policy unless premiums were paid or policy was taken out in fraud of creditors. Ala Friedman vs. Fennell, 04 Ala., 570. K Lehman vs. Gunn, 27 So., 475. Col Hendrie Co. vs. Platt, 56 Pac., 209. Fla Eppinger vs. Canepa, 20 Fla., 262. Ga Hubbard vs. Turner, 20 S. E., 640. Ind Pence vs. Makepeace, 65 Ind., 345. Ky Hise vs. Hartford Life, 1 1 Ky. L. R., 924. * Moorehead's Admr. vs. Mayf ield, 58 S. W., 473. Mich Ionia Bk. vs. MicLean, 84 Mich., 625. Miss Jones vs. Patty, 18 So., 794. Mo First Nat'l B'k vs. Simpson, 54 S. W., 506. Mo Mut. Life vs. Sandf elder, 9 Mo. App., 285. N. Y Holmes vs. Gilman, 138 N. Y., 369. " Dayton vs. Claflin Co., 45 N. Y. Supp., 1005. 69 NY Reynolds vs. Aetna Life, 55 N. E., 305. Ohio Weber vs. Paxton, 48 Ohio St., 266. U. S Central Bk. vs. Hume, 128 U. S., 195. 20 By statute in the following jurisdictions the proceeds of a policy payable to the wife, wife and children, or a married woman, cannot be reached by the creditors or rep- resentatives of the insured; the amount of premiums paid annually, or the amount of insurance which is so protected, is usually limited : Alabama, Connecticut, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Mis- souri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont and Wisconsin. See in this connection : 48 Central Law Journal, 307. 25 Amer. Law Review, 185 ; also, Ala Tompkins vs. Levy, 87 Ala., 263. " Felrath vs. Shonf eld, 76 Ala., 199. " Stone vs. Knickerbocker Life, 52 Ala., 589. " Fearn vs. Ward, 65 Ala., 333. Conn Bartram vs. Hopkins, 42 At., 645. D. C Central Bk. vs. Hume, 128 U. S., 195. Fla Eppinger vs. Caneppa, 20 Fla., 262. la Cook vs. Alice, 93 N. W., 93. " Larrabee vs. Palmer, 70 N. W., 100. " Rhode vs. Bank, 52 la., 375. " Smealy vs. Felt, 43 la., 607. Ill Pinneo vs. Goodspeed, 120 111., 536. " Pingree vs. Jones, 80 111., 177. Ely vs. Ely, 80 111., 532. 111., " Cole vs. Marple, 98 111., 58. Ind Pence vs. Makepeace, 65 Ind., 345. Miss Coates vs. Worthy, 17 So., 606. " Yale vs. McLaurin, 66 Miss., 461. Mo Judson vs. Walker, 55 S. W., 1083. " Pullis vs. Rpbison, 73 Mo., 201. u Reed vs. Painter, 31 S. W., 919. " Kiely vs. Hickox, 70 Mo. App., 617. N. Y Milhous vs. Johnson, 4 N. Y. Supp., 199. 70 N.Y Stokes vs. Amerman, 24 N. E., 8iQ. " Kittel vs. Domeyer, 70 App. Div., 134. Sherman vs. Allison, 80 N. Y. Supp., 148. Ohio Jacob vs. Continental Life, i C. S. C. R., 5*9- Pa McCutcheon's Appeal, 99 Pa. St., 133. S. C Barron vs. Williams, 36 S. E., 561. S. D Skinner vs. Holt, 69 N. W., 595. Tenn Rose vs. Wortham, 32 S. W., 458. " Harvey vs. Harrison, 89 Tenn., 470; 14 S. W., 1038. Wis Ellison vs. Straw, 92 N. W., 1094. 21 Endowment Policy not protected by Wife's Policy laws. Neb Talcott vs. Fields, 34 Neb., 611 ; 52 N. W., 400. Contra : Cal Briggs vs. McCullough, 36 Cal., 550. 22 Policy assigned to wife not protected by Wife's Policy laws. Ky Moorehead's Admr. vs. Mayfield, 58 S. W., 473- Mich Ionia Bk. vs. McLean, 84 Mich., 625 ; 48 N. W., 159- Ohio Cross vs. Armstrong, 44 Ohio St., 613; 10 N. E., 160. Pa Elliott's Appeal, 50 Pa. St., 75. " McCutcheon's Appeal, 99 Pa. St., 133. Contra : 111 Cole vs. Marple, 98 111., 58. Mo Judson vs. Walker, 55 S. W., 1083. See also Statutes of Connecticut and Masachusetts. 23 Proceeds of ztrife's policy may be reached by her creditors. la Murray vs. Wells, 53 la., 256. Miss Rice vs. Smith, 72 Miss., 42. N. Y Amberg vs. Manhattan Life, 63 N. E., mi. " Commercial Travelers vs. Newkirk, 16 N. Y. Supp., 177. " Wellington vs. Fox, 13 N. Y. Supp., 334. 24 Act July i, 1898, ch. 541, sec. ;oa, 30 Stat. 565. 25 Held that sec. 6 of the Bankr. Act did not apply : In re Lange, 91 Fed., 361. In re Steele, 98 Fed., 78. In re Holden, 114 Fed., 650. Contra : Steele vs. Buel, 104 Fed., 968. 26 In re Welling, 113 Fed., 189. In re Slingluff, 106 Fed., 154, In re Bpardman, 103 Fed., 783. In re Diack, 100 Fed., 770. Where policy had no cash surrender value, see Ga Morris vs. Dodd, 36 S. E., 83. In re Buelow, 98 Fed., 86. 27 As to Bankruptcy, see also the note to Morris vs. Dodd, in 5 Lawyers' R. A-> 33; also, Haskell vs. Equitable, 63 N. E., 899- 28 Policy payable to "heirs, executors, administrators or assigns" Construction of. Ga Rawson vs. Jones, 52 Ga., 458. N. Y Griswold vs. Sawyer, 8 N. Y. Supp., 517. 29 Policy payable to "Estate" of insured, Construction of. Ky Basye vs. Adams, 81 Ky., 368. Mass Daniel's Exr. vs. Pratt, 143 Mass., 216. 30 "Heirs" in life insurance contract means those who are entitled to insured 's personalty. Ala Tompkins vs. Levy, 6 So., 346. 72 Ark Johnson vs. Sup. Lodge, 53 Ark., 242; 13 S. W., 794- Conn Mullen vs. Reed, 64 Conn., 240; 29 At., 478. Ga Hubbard vs. Turner, 20 S. K, 640. Ill Richards vs. Miller, 62 111., 420. " Rawson vs. Rawson, 52 111., 62. " Alexander vs. Northwestern, 18 N. E., 556. Ky Weisert vs. Muehl, 81 Ky., 336. Mass Sweet vs. Button, 109 Mass., 589, 591. " Houghton vs. Kendall, 7 Allen, 72. " Codman vs. Krell, 152 Mass., 214 ; 25 N. E., 90. Me Mace vs. Cushman, 45 Me., 250. Mich Lyons vs. Yerex, 100 Mich., 214; 58 N. W., 112. N. J Welsh vs. Crater, 32 N. J. Eq., 177. " Leavitt vs. Dunn, 28 At}., 590. " Britton vs. Sup. Council, 46 N. J. Eq., 102; 18 At, 675. N. Y Bishop vs. Grand Lodge, 112 N. Y., 627; 20 N. E., 562. " Walsh vs. Walsh, 20 N. Y. Supp., 933- " Knights Templars vs. Greene 79 Fed., 461. Ohio Young Men's Assn. vs. Pollard, 3 Ohio Cir. Ct, 577- " In re Anders, 6 Ohio Dec., 174. Pa N. W. Masonic vs. Jones, 154 Pa. St., 99; 26 At., 253. " Ely's Appeal, 84 Pa. St., 241. Tex Hanna vs. Hanna, 30 S. W., 820. But see: la Phillips vs. Carpenter, 44 N. W., 898. Ill Gauch vs. St. Louis Mut., 88 111., 251. 31 Policy payable to "Legal Representatives," Construc- tion of. la Kelley vs. Mann, 56 la., 625 ; 10 N. W., 211. Ill Johnson vs. Van Epps, 100 III, 551. " People vs. Phelps, 78 111., 147. Mass Wason ,vs. Colburn, 99 Mass., 342. Minn Walter vs. Odd Fellows, 42 Minn., 204; 44 N. W., 57- 73 N. Y Sulz vs. Mut Reserve, 40 N. E., 242. Tex Pittel vs. Fidelity Mut, 86 Fed., 255. But seer- Minn Schultz vs. Citizens Mut., 61 N. W., 331. Mo Loos vs. John Hancock Co., 41 Mo., 538. N'Y Griswold vs. Sawyer, 125 N. Y., 411; 26 N. E., 464. 1 Hirsh vs. Mayer, 59 ,N. E., 89. Tenn Rose vs. Wortham, 32 S. W., 458. 32 "If living' means living at the time of insured 's death. Colo Chartrand vs. Brace, 16 Colo., 19; 26 Pac., 152. Tex Thomas vs. Leake, 67 Tex., 469 ; 3 S. W., 703. 33 There is no Presumption of Survivorship the Burden of Proof is upon the party asserting survivorship. Me Johnson vs. Merithew, 80 Me., in ; 13 At, 132. Md Cowman vs. Rogers, 73 Mid., 403 ; 21 At, 64. Mass Fuller vs. Linzee, 135 Mass., 468. Mo Sup. Council vs. Kacer, 69 S. W., 671. " U. S. Casualty Co. vs. Kacer, 69 S. W., 470. N. Y Newell vs. Nichols, 75 N. Y., 78. Tex Hildebrandt vs. Ames, 66 S. W., 128. " Males vs. Sovereign Camp, 70 S. W., 108. " ... Paden vs. Briscoe, 81 Tex., 503 ; 17 S. W., 42. See also in this connection : i Greenleafs Ev., sec. 29, 30; Best Ev., 304; 2 Whart. Ev., Sec. 1280; 2 Kent's Comm., 572. , But see: Louisiana Civ. Code, art. 93O-933 J 76 Cal., 649. 34 "Relatives" includes those by marriage as well as those by blood. la Simcoke vs. Grand Lodge, 84 la., 383; 51 N. W, 8. Me Spear vs. Robinson, 29 Me., 531. 74 Mass Anthony vs. Mass. Assn., 158 Mass., 322; 33 N. E., 577- N. J Bennett vs. Van Ripper, 47 N. J. Eq., 563; 22 At., 785- But see: Mass Esty vs. Clark, 101 Mass., 36. Kimball vs. Story, 108 Mass., 582. Pa. ...... .Storey vs. Wheatley, I Pa. St., 506. 35 "Relatives" does not include an illegitimate child. Mass Lavigne vs. Ligue des Patriotes, 178 Mass., 25. 36 "Dependents" includes those actually dependent upon insured for support. Ill Palmer vs. Welch, 132 111., 141 ; 23 N. E., 412. " Alexander vs. Parker, 144 111., 355 ; 33 N. E., 183. Ky Wolf vs. Pearce, 45 S. W,, 865. Mass Elsey vs. Odd Fellows, 142 Mass., 224. " McCarthy vs. Sup. Lodge, 153 Mass., 314; 26 N. E, 866. " Sup. Court vs. Perry, 140 Mass., 580; 5 N. E., 634- Mich Carmichael vs. N. W. Assn., 51 Mich., 494. Mo Wagner vs. St. Francis Soc., 70 Mo. App., 161. N. J Sup. Council vs. Smith, 45 N. J. Eq., 466; 17 At, 770. N. Y Hanley vs. Supreme Tent, 38 Misc., 161. Tex Grand Lodge vs. Bollman, 53 S. W., 829. Wis Ballou vs. Gile, 50 Wis., 614; 7 N. W., 561. 37 "Dependents" does not include a creditor. Skillings vs. Mass. Assn., 146 Mass., 217; 15 N. E., 566. 38 "Dependents" does not include a concubine, even though actually dependent. Mo Grand Lodge vs. Hanses, 81 Mo. App., 545. 75 Mo Keener vs. Grand Lodge, 36 Mo. App., 543. Tex West vs. Grand Lodge, 37 S. W., 966. 39 "Dependents" includes a woman living bona fide with insured^ believing herself to be legally married. Ind Sup. Lodge vs. Hutchinson, 33 N. E., 816. Mich Sup. Tent vs. McAllister, 92 N. W., 770. N. Y Story vs. Assn., 95 N. Y., 474. 40 Divorce does not terminate wife's interest in a regular life insurance policy. Col Overhiser vs. Overhiser, 59 Pac., 75. Conn Phoenix Ins. Co. vs. Dunham, 46 Conn., 79. Mo McKee vs. Phoenix Mut. Ins. Co., 28 Mo., 383. Ohio In re Insurance Policy, 7 Ohio N. P., 527. " Overhiser's Admx. vs. Overhiser, 57 N. E., 965. R I Aetna Life vs. Mason, 14 R. I., 583. U. S Conn. Mut. vs. Schaeffer, 94 U. S., 457. 41 Divorce a mensa et thoro does not terminate wife's in- terest in mutual benefit certificate. N. J Sup. Council, A. L. of H., vs. Smith, 17 At, 770; 45 N. J. Eq., 466. 42 Absolute divorce terminates interest of wife in mutual benefit certificate. Mass Tyler vs. Odd Fellows' Asn., 145 Mass., 134; 13 N. E., 360. Mo Order of Ry. Conductors vs. Koster, 55 Mo. App., 185. " Order of Ry. Conductors vs. Lally, 3 Mo. Legal News, 136. Tex Schonfield vs. Turner, 75 Tex., 324. 76 But see: Cal Courtois vs. Woodmen of the World, 67 Pac., 970. Col Overhiser vs. Overhiser, 59 Pac., 75. Ohio Sup. Commandery vs. Everding, 20 Ohio Cir. Ct, 689. 43 "Wife" means lawful wife. Me Bolton vs. Bolton, 73 Me., 299. Mo Ashford vs. Metropolitan Life, 2 Mo. App., 766. " Grand Lodge vs. Eisner, 26 Mo. App., 108. N. Y Schnook vs. Sons of Benjamin, 24 N. Y. Wkly. Digest, 348. But see: Ind Sup. Lodge vs. Hutchinson, 33 N. E., 816. Pa Overbeck vs. Overbeck, 25 At., 646. 44 "Widow" means wife of insured who survives him. D. C Masonic Mut. Ben. Assn. vs. McAuley, 2 Mackey. 70. La Phelan vs. Phelan, 21 Ins. L. J., 93. Me Small vs. Jose, 86 Me., 120. 45 Policy payable to "wife and children" Beneficiaries take per capita. Cal Heydenfeld vs. Jacobs, 40 Pac., 492. Ind Milburn vs. Milburn, 83 Ind., 55. Kan Felix vs. Grand Lodge, 31 Kan., 81 ; I Pac., 281. La.. ..Tutorship of Crane, 17 So., 431; 47 La. Ann., 896. Me Cragin vs. Cragin, 66 Me., 512. Mass Gould vs. Emerson, 99 Mass., 154. ' Jackman vs. Nelson, 147 Mass., 300; 17 N. E., Tex N. Y. Life vs. Ireland, 14 S. W., 617. Wis Taylor vs. Hill, 56 N. W., 738. 77 46 Policy payable to "wife and children" Beneficiaries, take according to Statute of Distributions. Ky Johnson vs. Johnson. 57 S. W., 460. " Kelly vs. Ball, 19 S. W., 581. " McLin vs. Calvert, 78 Ky., 472. Tenn Goslin vs. Caldwell, 69 Tenn., 474. 47 The word "Children" does not include Grandchildren. Ala Russell vs. Russell, 64 Ala., 500. Ala Continental Ins. Co. vs. Webb, 54 Ala., 500. Mass Thompson vs. Ludington, 104 Mass., 193. N. J Feit's Exr. vs. Vanatta, 21 N. J. Eq., 84. N. Y Lane vs. De Mets, 13 N. Y. Supp., 347. " Lerch vs. Freutel, 73 N. Y. Supp., 1078. " U. S. Trust Co. vs. Mut. Ins. Co., 115 N. Y., 152; 21 N. E., 1025. " Walsh vs. Mut. Life, 133 N. Y, 408; 31 N. E., 228. Ohio Frank vs. Bauman, 54 Ohio St., 621. Pa Hallowell vs. Phipps, 2 Wharton, 376. " In re Stemmetz's Estate, 45 At., 663. R. I Winsor vs. Odd Fellows, 13 R. I. t 149. 3, 13 tt. N. W., Wis Elgar vs. Equitable, 88 N. W., 927. 48 The word "Children" includes Grandchildren. Conn Continental Ins. Co. vs. Palmer, 42 Conn., 60. la Estate of Conrad, 56 N. W., 535 ; 89 la., 535. Ky Duvall vs. Goodson, 79 Ky., 224. " Nuchols vs. Ky. Mut., 16 Ky. L. ,R., 270. " Sup. Council vs. Densford, 56 S. W., 172. Mich Voss vs Conn. Mut, 77 N. W., 697. N. C Suggs vs. Hooker, 102 N. C, 115; 8 S. E., 919. Tenn , Glenn vs. Burns, 45 S. W., 785. 49 Adopted child will not take under a policy payable to "Children" unless such is the intent. Me Martin vs. Aetna Life, 73 Me., 25. 78 50 "Children" includes afterborn Children. Ala Roquemore vs. Dent, 33 So., 178. Mich Union Mut. vs. Montgomery, 70 Mich., 587 ; 38 N. W., 588. Tex Thomas vs. Leake, 67 Tex., 469; 3 S. W., 703. 4 Kent Comm., 412. 2 Redf. on Wills, 10. 2 Washb. Real Property, 654. But see : R. I Conn. Mut vs. Baldwin, 15 R. I., 106; 23 At, 105. 51 "Where Children are designated by name, afterborn child takes no share of proceeds. la Spry vs. Williams, 82 la., 61 ; 47 N. W., 890. Minn Hanson vs. Minn. Assn., 60 N. W., 1091. N. C Scull vs. Aetna Life, 43 S. K, 504. 52 "Children" includes Children of insured by a former or subsequent wife. Mass Jackman vs. Nelson, 17 N. K, 529. Minn Ricker vs. Charter Oak, 27 Minn., 93. Mo McDermott vs. Centennial Assn., 24 Mo. App., 73- " State Life vs. Redman, 91 Mo. App., 49. Tex Evans vs. Opperman, 76 Tex., 273 ; 13 S. W., 312. 53 "Children" does not include Children of wife by a former husband. la Koehler vs. Centennial Assn., 66 la., 325. 54 "Their Children" means children of insured by his then ivife. N. H Aetna Life vs. Clough, 44 Atl., 520. 79 N Y Lockwood vs. Bishop, 51 How. Pr., 221 ; 18 Ins. L. J., 491. Tex Evans vs. Opperman, 76 Tex. 273; 13 S. W., 312 But see: Va Stigler vs. Stigler, 77 Va., 163. 55 Interest of Beneficiary becomes vested upon the death of the insured. Col Chartrand vs. Brace, 16 Col., 19; 26 Pac. 152. Mich Union Assn. vs. Montgomery, 70 Mich., 587; 38 N. W., 588. Minn Kottman vs. Minn. Soc., 68 N. W., 732. N. Y Aiken vs. Assn., 13 N. Y. Supp., 579. Ore I. O. F. vs. Keliher, 59 Pac., 759. Tex Thomas vs. Leake, 67 Tex., 469; 3 S. W., 703. 56 In Regular Life Insurance the Beneficiary has a vested interest unless policy provides otherwise. Ala Waldrun vs. Waldrun, 76 Ala., 285. Ark Franklin Life vs. Galligan, 73 S. W., 102. Cal Yore vs. Booth, 42 Pac., 808. Conn Chapin vs. Fellows, 36 Conn., 132. " Lemon vs. Phoenix Mut, 38 Conn., 294. D. C Wash. Bk. vs. Hume, 128 U. S., 195. Ill Glanz vs. Gloeckler, 104 111., 573. Ind Holland vs. Taylor, ill Ind., 125. la Willmaster vs. Cont. Life., 66 la., 417. Ky Mut. Ben. vs. Dunn, 51 S. W., 20. La Lambert vs. Penn. Mut., 24 So. 16 ; 50 La. Ann., 1027. " Pilcher vs. N. Y. Life, 33 La. Ann., 332. Me Duffy vs. Met. Life, 47 Atl., 905. " Laughlin vs. Norcross, 53 At., 834. " Nat. Life vs. Halsey, 78 Me., 268. " Small vs. Jose, 86 Me., 120 ; 29 At, 976. Mass Boyden vs. Mass. Co., 153 Mass., 544. " Pingree vs. Nat. Life, 144 Mass., 374; n N. E., 502. 80 Mich Lockwood vs. Mich. Ins. Co., 66 N. W., 229; 108 Mich, 334. Minn Allis vs. Ware, 28 Minn., 166. " Ricker vs. Charter Oak, 6 N. W., 771; 27 Minn., 193. Miss Jackson Bk. vs. Williams, 26 So. 965; 77 Miss., 398. N. H City Bk. vs. Whittle, 63 N. H., 587. N. J Landrum vs. Knowles, 22 N. J. Eq., 594. " L. E. Assn. vs. Winterstein, 44 Atl., 199. N. Y Foley vs. Mut. Life, 138 N. Y., 333. " Garner vs. German Life, 1 10 N. Y., 266. " Ferdon vs. Canfield, 104 N. Y. 143. " Whitehead vs. N. Y. Life, 102 N. Y., 143. N. C Hooker vs. Sugg., 102 N. C, 115. Ohio Man. Life vs. Smith, 44 Ohio St., 156. Pa Brown's Appeal, 125 Pa. St., 303. " Mattlack vs. Mut. Life, 36 At, 1082; 180 Pa. St., 360. R. I Conn. Mut. vs. Baldwin, 15 R. I., 106; 23 At, 105. S. C McAuley vs. Nat. Bk., 27 S. C, 215. Tex Irwin vs. Trav. Ins. Co., 39 S. W., 1097. 57 Where the Beneficiary may be changed without his consent, he has no vested interest. Cal Hoeft vs. Sup. Lodge, 45 Pac., 185. Col Hill vs. Groesbeck, 67 Pac., 167. Ga Bilbro vs. Jones, 29 S. E., 118. Ill Johnson vs. Van Epps, no 111., 551. Ind Holland vs. Taylor, in Ind., 121. " Masonic Mut. vs. Burkhart, no Ind., 189. " Presbt Fund vs. Allen, 106 Ind., 593. la Schmidt vs. la. Assn., 82 la., 304; 47 N. W., 1032. Kan Titswprth vs. Titsworth, 20 Pac., 213. Ky Schillinger vs. Boes, 85 Ky., 357. " Duvall vs. Goodsen, 79 Ky., 224. Md Md. Soc. vs. Clendenin, 44 Md., 428. 81 Mass Marsh vs. Sup. Council, 21 N. E., 1070. Mich Met Life vs. O'Brien, 52 N. W., 1012; 92 Mich., 584- 1 Union Assn. vs. Montgomery, 38 N. W., 588; 70 Mich., 587. Minn Finch vs. Grand Grove, 60 Minn., 308 ; 62 N. W., 384. Schoenau vs. Grand Lodge, 88 N. W., 999. Mo Masonic Mut. vs. Bunch, 19 6. W., 25 ; 109 Mo., 560. ' Wells vs. Covenant Mut., 29 S. W., 607. N. H K. O. vs. Watson, 64 N. H., 517. N. J Tepper vs. Sup. Council, 45 At, in. N. Y Sabin vs. Phinney, 31 N. E., 1087; 134 N. Y., 423. Pa Fisk vs. Equit. Aid Union, 11 At, 84. " Hamilton vs. Royal Arcan., 189 Pa. St., 273 ; 42 At, 186. Tex Byrne vs. Casey, 70 Tex., 247; 8 S. W., 38. Splawn vs. Chew, 60 Tex., 532. Wash Thomas vs. Grand Lodge, 41 Pac., 882; 12 Wash., 500. " Cade vs. Woodmen of World, 67 Pac., 603. Fed Hopkins vs. N. W. Met, 99 Fed., 199. " Gentry vs. K. of H., 23 Fed., 718. " Lamont vs. Grand Lodge, 31 Fed., 177. 58 Beneficiary may acquire a vested interest by a contract with the insured. Cal Grimbley vs. Harold, 57 Pac., 558. N. Y Maynard vs. Vandewerker, 24 N. Y. Supp., 932. See also: " Smith vs. Nat Ben. Soc., 123 N. Y., 85; 25 N. K, 197. Contra : Mo Masonic Assn. vs. Bunch, 109 Mo., 560; 19 S. W., 25. See also statutes of Idaho, Indiana, Iowa and Missouri. 82 59 Possession of policy or certificate by Beneficiary does not, of itself, give him a vested interest. Ga Nally vs. Nally, 74 Ga., 669. Ill Glanz vs. Gloeckler, 104 III, 573. la Hirschl vs. Clark, 81 la., 200. Pa Beatty's Appeal, 15 At, 861. " Fisk vs. Equit. Union, 1 1 At., 84. Tex .Byrne vs. Casey, 70 Tex., 247 ; 8 S. W., 38. Va Leftwich vs. Wells, 43 S. E., 364. 60 Vested interests of minor children cannot be defeated even though they consent. N. Y Foley vs. Mutual Life, 138 N. Y., 333. Pa Brown's Appeal, 46 Legal Int., 361. Fed Brockhaus vs. Kenna, 7 Fed., 609. 61 Policy payable to "Wife and, in the event of her prior death, to the Children" of insured interests of both Wife and Children are vested but contingent. (See also 62, 84.) Ala Roquemore vs. Dent., 33 So., 178. Mass Millard vs. Brayton, 59 N. E., 436. N. Y Whitehead vs. N. Y. Life, 102 N. Y., 143. Pa Entwistle vs. Travelers, 51 At., 759. 62 Policy payable to "Wife and, in the event of her prior death, to the Children," of insured. Only such children who survive the mother upon her death prior to the in- sured share in the policy. Interest of child dying after the mother, but before the insured, goes to such child's per- sonal representatives. (See 61, 84.) Ala Cont. Life vs. Webb, 54 Ala., 688. Ala Roquemore vs. Dent, 33 So., 178. Mass Millard vs. Brayton, 59 N. E., 436. N. H Smith vs. Aetna Life, 44 At., 531. N. Y U. S. Trust Co. vs. Mut. Ben., 115 N. Y., 152. 83 N. Y Walsh vs. Mut. Life, 133 N. Y., 408 Contra : Term Glenn vs. Burns, 45 S. W., 785. 63 Vested interests are not defeated by a wrongful sur- render of the policy. Conn Chapin vs. Fellows, 36 Conn., 132. 1 Lemon vs. Phoenix Mut., 38 Conn., 298. Minn Ricker vs. Charter Oak, 27 Minn., 193. N. Y Stillwell vs. Mut. Life, 72 N. Y., 385. " Whitehead vs. N. Y. Life, 102 N. Y., 143. Fed Singer vs. Charter Oak, 22 Fed., 774. ' Timayenis vs. Union Mut., 21 Fed. 223. 1 Union Mut. vs. Stevens, 19 Fed., 671. 64 Member in Mutual Benefit Society is generally given the right to change his Beneficiary. Mo Masonic Assn. vs. Bunch, 109 Mo., 560; 19 S. W., 25. See also cases in 68. 65 States having statutes giving members of mutual bene- fit societies the right to change the beneficiary : Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mich- igan, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York and South Dakota. 66 Where insured has only the right to apportion the benefit fund, he cannot change the Beneficiary. Ky Ry. Grangers vs. Howe, 9 Ky. Law Rep., 198. 67 Where it is prohibited by express provision in the con- tract, the Beneficiary of a mutual benefit certificate cannot be changed. Ind Mason vs. Mason, 63 N. E., 578. " Presby. Fund vs. Allen, 106 Ind., 595. 84 Ind Sup. Lodge vs. Knight, 117 Ind., 489. Kan Olmstead vs. Masonic Mut., 37 Kan., 93. Ky Van Bibber vs. Van Bibber, 82 Ky., 347. Tex Thomas vs. Leake, 67 Tex., 472. 68 Membership in a Mutual Benefit Society gives a mem- ber the right to change his Beneficiary even though the contract is silent as to such right. Ill Benton vs. Brotherhood, 146 111., 570. " Delany vs. Delany, 51 N. E., 961. " Johnson vs. Van Epps, no 111., 551-8. Ind Holland vs. Taylor, in Ind., 121; 12 N. E., 116. " Masonic Mut. vs. Burkhart, no Ind., 189; n N. E., 449; 10 N. E., 79. " .Presby. Fund vs. Allen, 106 Ind., 583; 7 N. E., 317. la Carpenter vs. Knapp, 101 la., 712; 70 N. W., 764. " Schmidt vs. Assn., 82 la., 304 ; 47 N. W., 1032. " Wendt vs. Legion of Honor, 72 la., 682 ; 34 N. W., 470. Ky Duvall vs. Goodson, 79 Ky., 224. Md Md. Soc. vs. Clendenin, 44 Md., 429. Mich Catholic Assn. vs. Priest, 46 Mich., 429; 9 N. W., 481. " Union Mut. vs. Montgomery, 70 Mich., 587; 38 N. W., 588. Minn Richmond vs. Johnson, 28 Minn., 447; IO N. W., 596. Mo Aid Soc. vs. Lewis, 9 Mo. App., 412. " Masonic Assn. vs. Bunch, 109 Mo., 560: 19 S. W., 25. N. Y Hellenberg vs. Ind. Order, 94 N. Y., 580. " Sabin vs. Grand Lodge, 134 N. Y., 432; 31 N. E., 1087. Tex Byrne vs. Casey, 70 Tex., 247; 8 S. W., 38. ' Splawn vs. Chew, 60 Tex., 532. , Wash Thomas vs. Grand Lodge, 41 Pac., 882. Wis Ballou vs. Gile, 50 Wis., 614; 7 N. W.. 561. ' Detrick vs. Madison Relief, 45 Wis., 84. 85 Fed Gentry vs. Sup. Lodge, 23 Fed., 719. ' Lament vs. Grand Lodge, 31 Fed., 177. Eastman vs. Prov. Mut, 20 Cent. L. J., 393. But see : Ark Johnson vs. Hall, 55 Ark., 210; 17 S. W., 874. N. J Assn. vs. Winterstein, 44 At., 199. , 69 Beneficiary of Regular Life Insurance Policy may be changed if permitted by the terms of the contract. (See 80.) Ky Hopkins vs. Hopkins, 92 Ky., 324; 17 S. W., 864. N. Y Hutchins vs. Miner, 46 N. Y., 456. 70 The method of changing the Beneficiary, as set forth in the Contract, Charter, Constitution or By-Laws, must be followed in order to make a valid change. (See 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 78, 79-) C'al Conway vs. Sup. Council, 63 Pac., 727. Colo Rolands vs. McHatten, 16 Colo., 203 ; 27 Pac., 254- lil Highland vs. Highland, 109 111., 366; 13 111. App., 510. Ind Holland vs. Taylor, in Ind., 127. " Presby. Fund vs. Allen, 160 Ind., 597. la Modern Woodman vs. Little, 86 N. W., 216. " Schuman vs. A. O. U. W., 82 N. W., 331. " Stephenson vs. Stephenson, 21 N. W., 19; 64 la., 534- " Wendt vs. la. L. of H., 72 la., 682 ; 34 N. W., 470. Kan Olmstead vs. Masonic Mut, 37 Kan., 93; 14 Pac., 449. Ky Basye vs. Adams, 81 Ky., 363. " Ky. Masonic Mut. vs. Miller, 3 Bush, 489. " Leaf vs. Leaf, 92 Ky., 166; 17 S. W., 354- " Manning vs. Sup. Lodge, 86 Ky., 136; 5 S. W., 385. 86 Mass Daniels vs. Pratt, 143 Mass., 216; 10 N. E., 166. " McCarthy vs. N. E. Order, 153 Mass., 314; 26 N. E., 866. Mich Sup. L. K. of H. vs. Nairn, 60 Mich., 44; 20 N. W., 826. Mo Coleman vs. K. of H., 18 Mo. App., 189. N. H Eastman vs. Prov. Assn., 62 N. H., 552. " Mellows vs. Mellows, 61 N. H., 137. N. J Sup. Council A. L. H. vs. Smith, 45 N. J., 466; 17 At., 770. N. Y Gladding vs. Gladding, 56 Hun., 639. Greene vs. Greene, 23 Hun., 478. " Ireland vs. Ireland, 42 Hun., 212. N. C Elliott vs. Whedke, 94 N. C, 115. N. C Smith vs. Sup. Council, 37 S. E., 159. Ore Stringham vs. Dillon, 69 Pac., 1020. Pa Jinks vs. Banner Lodge, 139 Pa. St., 414. Pa Nat. Mut. Assn. vs. Leopold, 101 Pa. St., in. " Masonic Assn. vs. Jones, 154 Pa. St., 107; 26 At., 255. " Vollman's Appeal, 92 Pa. St., 50. Wis Berg vs. Damkoehler, 88 N. W., 606. Fed Gentry vs. K. of H., 23 Fed., 718. ' Harmon vs. Lewis, 24 Fed., 97 ; 530. " Hotel Men's Mut. Ben. vs. Brown, 33 Fed., n. 71 // the Beneficiary may be changed, but no particular method is prescribed for making the change, any method showing an intention to change is sufficient. (See 79.) Ja Hirschl vs. Clark, 81 la., 200; 47 N. W., 78. Mass Atlantic Mut. vs. Gannon, 60 N. E., 933. Mo Masonic Mut. Ben. vs. Bunch, 109 Mo., 560; 19 S. W., 25. 72 Where a mutual benefit certificate requires compliance ivith the "laws of the Society" the laws referred to are those in existence at the time the Change of Beneficiary is attempted. 111. . . .Sup. Council vs. Franke, 137 111., 118; 27 N. E., 86. 87 R. I Sup. Council Cath. K. vs. Morrison, 16 R. L, 468; 17 At, 57- Tenn Cath. Knights of Amer. vs. Kuhn, 91 Tenn., 214; i8S. W., 385. 73 The insurer may refuse to give his Consent to a pro- posed Change of Beneficiary, but such refusal must be upon reasonable grounds. Mass Daniels vs. Pratt, 143 Mass., 216. N. J Sup. Council vs. Smith, 45 N. J. Eq., 17 At, 770. N. Y Hellenberg vs. I. O. O. B, 94 N. Y., 583. ' Marcus vs. St. Louis Mut, 68 N. Y., 625. c Murphy vs. Met Assn., 55 N. Y. Supp., 620. Pa Jinks vs. Banner Lodge, 21 At, 4; 139 Pa. St., 414. *' Nat. Mut. vs. Lupold, 101 Pa. St., in. Fed Hotel Men vs. Brown, 33 Fed., n. 74 An insurer may Waive a Strict Compliance with the rules and method of Changing the Beneficiary, and, if a change is so made, it is valid and the original beneficiary cannot complain. Cal Bowman vs. Moore, 87 Cal., 306; 25 Pac., 409. " Adams vs. Grand Lodge, 125 Cal, 321; 38 Pac., 914. Ill Martin vs. Stnbbings, 126 111., 387. Ind Holland vs. Taylor, in Ind., 121. " Presby. Fund vs. Allen, 106 Ind., 593. la Schmidt vs. la. Knights, 47 N. W., 1032. " Simcoke vs. Grand Lodge, 51 N. W., 8 ; 84 la., _o~ <; Wendt vs. la. L. of H., 72 la., 682. Kan Titsworth vs. Titsworth, 40 Kan. 571 ; 20 Pac., 213- Ky Duvall vs. Goodson, 79 Ky., 224. " Manning vs. A. O. U. W., 5 S. W., 385 ; 86 Ky., 136. Mass Anthony vs. Mass. Assn., 158 Mass., 322; 33 N. E., 577- 88 Mass Marsh vs. Sup. Council, 144 Mass., 512; 21 N. E., 1070. " .Sup. Council vs. Perry, 140 Mass., 580. Mich Allgemeiner Bund vs. Adamson, 92 N. W., 786. Mich Supreme Court vs. Davis, 88 N. W., 874. Mo Stewart vs. Sup. Council, 36 Mo. App., 319. N. H Brown vs. Mansur, 64 N. H., 39; 5 At, 768. " . . ..Barton vs. Assn., 63 N. H., 535. K. of H. vs. Watson, 64 N. H., 517. N. Y Gladding vs. Gladding, 8 N. Y. Supp., 880. Pa Nat. Soc. vs. Lupold, 101 Pa. St., HI. R. I John Hancock vs White, 40 At., 5. Tenn Schardt vs. Schardt, 45 S. W., 340. Tex Byrne vs. Casey, 70 Tex., 247- " Splawn vs. Chew, 60 Tex., 532. Wis McGowan vs. I. O. R, 80 N. W., 603. Fed Sup. Conclave vs. Cappella, 41 Fed., I. 75 Where the insured has done all in his power to make a Change of Beneficiary, but dies before the Change is actually made, or where it is impossible for the insured to perform all the requirements, a Court of Equity will con- sider the Change as valid. Cal Jory vs. Sup. Council, 105 Cal., 20; 38 Pac., 524- Ga Nally vs. Nally, 74 Ga., 669. Ind Isrigg vs. Schooley, 125 Ind., 94; 25 N. E., 151. la Hirschl vs. Clark, 81 la., 200. " Schmidt vs. Iowa Assn., 82 la., 304. Kan Heydorf vs. Conrack, 7 Kan. App., 202; 52 Pac., 700. Pa Jinks vs. Banner Lodge, 139 Pa. St., 414. Mass Marsh vs. A. L. O. H., 149 Mass., 512. Mich A. O. U. W. vs. Kohler, 63 N. W, 897. " Grand Lodge vs. Child, 70 Mich., 163; 38 N. W., i. " . ..Grand Lodge vs. Noll, 90 Mich., 37; 51 N. W., 268. Miss Hall vs. Allen, 22 So., 4. Mo Nat. Soc. vs. Kirgin, 28 Mo. App., 80. N. H Sanborn vs. Black, 35 At., 942 N. Y Fink vs. Society, 68 N. Y., Supp., 80. " Lahey vs. Lahey, 174 N. Y., 146; 66 N. E., 670. R. I John Hancock vs. White, 40 At, 5. Fed Sup. Council vs. Cappella, 41 Fed., i. 76 Where the insured wilfully or carelessly failed to take all of the steps necessary to Change the Beneficiary, the attempt to Change was held ineffectual. N. Y Eagan vs. Eagan, 68 N. Y. Supp., 777. " Ireland vs. Ireland, 42 Hun, 212. Ore Stringham vs. Dillon, 69 Pac., 1020. Pa Hamilton vs. Royal Arcan., 42 At, 126. See also cases in 70. 77 Fraud, or undue influence inducing a Change of Bene- ficiary, is immaterial, so far as the Original Beneficiary is concerned. Cal Hoeft vs. Sup. Lodge, 45 Pac., 185 ; 113 Cal., 91. Ill Pingree vs. Jones, 80 111., 181. See also : la Schuman vs. Sup. Lodge, 81 N. W., 717. N. Y Smith vs. Harmon, 59 N. Y. Supp., 1044 Tenn Goodrich vs. Bohan, 52 S. E., 1105. 78 The Beneficiary cannot be Changed by the insured' s Will unless the contract prescribes no method of making the change or expressly permits a change by Will. (See 79-) Cal Silva vs. Sup. Council, 42 Pac., 32. Ind Holland vs. Taylor, in Ind., 121; 12 N. E., 116. la Hiner vs. la. L. of H., 78 la., 245; 43 N. W., 185. " Stephenson vs. Stephenson, 64 la., 534. Ky Ins. Co. vs. Miller, 13 Bush., 489. Mass Daniels vs. Pratt, 143 Mass., 216; 10 N. E., 166. N. Y Fink vs. Fink, 64 N. E., 506. 90 Ohio Charch vs. Charch, 49 N. E., 408. Pa Vollman's Appeal, 92 Pa. St., 50. 79 Where no method of Changing the Beneficiary is pre- scribed, or where no beneficiary has ever been named, the insured may direct in his Will to whom the proceeds shall be paid. Cal Order of M. C vs. Griest, 76 CaL, 494; 18 Pac., 652. Mo Masonic Mut. vs. Bunch, 109 Mo. 560: 10 S. W., 25. 80 Where a man takes out insurance on his own life, and pays the premiums himself, he may dispose of the policy in any manner he sees fit, even though there be a bene- ficiary named in the contract. Wis Clark vs. Durand, 12 Wis., 223. ' Kerman vs. Howard, 23 Wis., 108. ' Foster vs. Gile, 50 Wis., 603 ; 7 N. W., 555. ' In re. Bretung's estate, 78 Wis., 33 ; 46 N. W., 891. ' Strike vs. Wis., Etc., Co., 95 Wis., 583; 70 N. W., 819. But see: Ellison vs. Straw, 92 N. W., 1094. 8.1 The Beneficiary of a Mutual Benefit Certificate loses his entire interest in the certificate by his Death prior to the insured. Cal In re. Greist, 18 Pac., 654. ".._ Sup. Council vs. Gehrenbeck, 124 Cal., 43; 56 . ; i Pac., 640. D. C Masonic Mut. vs. McAuley, 2 Mackey, 70. " Wash. Assn. vs. Wood, 4 Mackey, 19. Ill Palmer vs. Welch, 132 III, 141 ; 23 N. E., 412. Kan Brew vs. Clement, 48 Kan., 386. 9 1 Mass Haskins vs. Kendall, 158 Mass., 224; 33 N. E., 495- ; L. of H. vs. Perry, 140 Mass., 589 ; 5 N. E., 636. ' Boden vs. Assn., 45 N. E., 735. Mich Lyon vs. Rolfe, 76 Mich., 146-42 N. W., 1094. " Wood vs. Lenawee Cir. Judge, 84 Mich., 521. Minn Gutterson vs. Gutterson, 50 Minn., 258 : 52 N. W., 530. Richmond vs. Johnson, 28 Minn., 447. Mo Expressmen's Soc. vs. Lewis, 9 Mo. App., 415. N. J Britton vs. Sup. Council, 46 N. J. Eq., 102. N. Y Brooklyn Masonic Assn. vs. Hanson, 6 N. Y. Supp., 161. Cullen vs. Sup. Tent., 77 Hun, 6. " Hellenberg vs. I. O. O. R., 94 N. Y., 580. Pa Arthars vs. Baird, 8 Pa. County Ct., 67. Tenn Handwerker vs. Diermeyer, 36 S. W., 869. Wis Gibbon vs. Wis. Oddfellows, 71 Wis., 547; 37 N. W., 817. ' Riley vs. Riley, 75 Wis., 464; 44 N. W., 112. Contra : Ark Johnson vs. Hall, 55 Ark., 210; 17 S. W., 874. Md Expressman's Assn. vs. Hurlock, 46 At, 957. " Thomas vs. Cochran, 43 At., 792. N.J Brown vs. Murray, 35 At, 748. Pa Clark vs. Aid Union, 6 Pa. County Rep., 321. 82 Upon the Death of a Beneficiary of a Regular Life In- surance Policy his interest in such policy passes to his per- sonal representatives. Ala Drake vs. Stone, 58 Ala., 133. Ark Johnson vs. Hall, 55 Ark., 210. Conn Continental Ins. Co. vs. Palmer, 42 Conn., 60. Ind Harley vs. Heist, 86 Ind., 196. " Hutson vs. Merrifield, 51 Ind., 24. Mass Swan vs. Snow, n Allen, 224. " Bancroft vs. Russell, 31 N. E., 710. Minn Ricker vs. Charter Oak, 27 Minn., 193-6. N. Y Hull vs. Hull, 62 How. Pr., 100. " li. S. Trust Co. vs. Ins. Co., 115 N. Y., 157; 21 N. E., 1025. 92 S. C McCauley vs. Cent. Nat. Bk., 27 S. C, 215. Tex Evans vs. Opperman, 13 S. W., 312. Wis Ellison vs. Straw, 92 N. W., 1094. " Foster vs. Gile, 50 Wis., 603 ; 8 N. W., 217. " Alvord vs. Luckenbach, 82 N. W., 535- Contra : Ohio Ryan vs. Rothweiler, 50 Ohio St., 595; 35 N. E., 697. " Frank vs. Bauman, 54 Ohio St., 621. 83 Wherever the Common Law Rule of Survivorship of the Husband applies, the entire interest of a Wife in a life insurance contract will go to her husband who sur- vives her, to the exclusion of her next of kin. Minn Lambertson vs. Bogart, 46 Minn., 409 ; 49 N. W., 230. N Y In re. Negus, 58 N. Y. Supp. 377 (governed by N. J. Law). " Matter of Warner, 32 N. Y. St., 897. " Olmstead vs. Keyes, 85 N. Y., 593. " Waldheim vs. John Hancock, 8 Misc., 506; 13 N. Y. Supp., 577 ; 28 N. Y. Supp., 766. N. C Simmons vs. Biggs, 5 S. K, 235. But see: Ind Harley vs. Heist, 86 Ind., 196. " Hutson vs. Merrifield, 51 Ind., 24. Me Libbey vs. Libbey, 37 Me., 359. Mo Shield's Trustee vs. Sharpe, 17 Ins. L. J., 793, Pa Anderson's estate, 85 Pa. St., 202. 84 Policy payable to "Wife and, in the event of her prior death, the Children" of insured Interest of Children is contingent upon the death of the mother prior to that of the insured, and any child ivhich predeceases the mother loses his entire interest in the policy. (See 61, 62.) Mass Millard vs. Brayton, 59 N. E., 436. N. H Smith vs. Aetna Life, 44 At, 531. N. Y Lockwood vs. Bishop, 18 Ins. L. J., 491. " U. S. Trust Co. vs. Mut. Ben., 115 N. Y., 152. 93 N.Y. . ..Walsh vs. Mut. Life, 133 N. Y., 408; 51 N. E., 228. Contra : Mich Voss vs. Conn. Mut., 77 N. W., 697. Pa In re. Thorne, 33 Pittsburg L. J., 233. Tenn Glenn vs. Burns, 45 S. W., 785 ; 100 Tenn., 295. 85 Where there is more than one Beneficiary of a mutual benefit certificate, they hold as joint tenants with the right of survivorship, and upon the Death of one of the Bene- ficiaries his interest passes to the survivor or survivors. (See also 81.) Ill Covenant Assn. vs. Hoffman, no 111., 603. Ky Bell vs. Kinneer, 40 S. W., 686. "" Robinson vs. Duvall, 79 Ky., 83. Wis Farr vs. Trustees Grand Lodge A. O. U. W., 83 Wis., 446. But see: Ky Sup. Council vs. Densford, 56 S. W., 172. N. C Hooper vs. Sugg, 8 S. E., 919. 86 Where there is more than one Beneficiary of a Regular Life Insurance Policy, they hold as tenants in common, and, upon the death of one, his interest passes to his per- sonal representative. (See also 56, 82.) N. H Smith vs. Aetna Life, 44 At., 531. N. C Simmons vs. Biggs, 5 S. E., 235. 87 Marriage of insured will not affect beneficiary's right to the proceeds. (See 88.) Ill Benton vs. Brotherhood R. R. B., 34 N. E., 939. " Highland vs. Highland, 109 111., 366. Mass Mass. O. of F. vs. Callahan, 146 Mass., 391 ; 16 N. E., 19. 94 88 Beneficiary loses his interest upon marriage of the in- sured if the contract or statute gives wife, or wife and children, the preference to the proceeds. N. Y Sanger vs. Rothschild, 123 N. Y., 577. Tenn Rose vs. Wortham, 95 Tenn., 505; 32 S. W., 458. 89 Where a beneficiary or assignee murders the insured, such beneficiary or assignee, and any one claiming under him, will lose all right to the insurance proceeds; the pro- ceeds zvill be paid to the insured' s personal representa- tive if the insurance be a regular life insurance policy ; if a mutual benefit certificate, the proceeds .will be paid as if no beneficiary had been designated. Ill Schreiner vs. 111. Cath. Soc., 35 111. App., 576. " Holdom vs. Grand Lodge, 43 N. E., 772. la Schmidt vs. Northern Life, 83 N. W., 800. Va N. Y. Life vs. Davis, 32 S. E., 475. U. S N. Y. Mut vs. Armstrong, 117 U. S., 591. Canada Trudeau vs. Standard Life, 16 Rap. Jud., Que. C. S., 539. Eng Cleaver vs. Mut. F. L. Assn., 8 Times L. R., 139- " Prince of Wales Co. vs. Palmer, 25 Beav., 605. See Par. 7740 (83) ; Michigan Insur- ance Law. 90 The Assignment of a Part of a chose in action is up- held in Equity, if there be Consideration. Ga Daniels vs. Meinhard, 53 Ga., 359. Ill Pomeroy vs. Manhattan Life, 40 111., 398. Ind Lapping vs. Duffy, 47 Ind., 51. Me Exchange Bank vs. McLopn, 73 Me., 498. Minn Canty vs. Latterner, 31 Minn., 239. Miss Whitney vs. Cowan, 55 Miss., 626. N. J Public Schools vs. Heath, 15 N. J. Eq., 22. N. Y Risley vs. Phoenix Bk, 83 N. Y., 318. Ohio Stanberry vs. Smythe, 13 Ohio St. _(N. S.), 495. 95 Penn Caldwell vs. Hartupee, 70 Pa. St., 74, 79. Vt Clafflin vs. Kimball, 52 Vt, 7. 91 A A Life Insurance Contract is an Assignable chose in action. (See 103, 104.) Conn Fitzgerald vs. Hartford Ins. Co., 56 Conn., 116. Ill Martin vs. Stubbings, 126 111., 387. Ind Bushnell vs. Bushnell, 92 Ind., 503. " Harley vs. Heist, 86 Ind., 196. " Hutson vs. Merrifield, 51 Ind., 24. La Stuart vs. Sutcliff, 46 La. Ann., 240. Md Hewlett vs. Home, Etc., 74 Md., 350. " Hurst vs. Mutual Reserve, 26 At., 956. " N. Y. Ins. Co. vs. Flack, 3 Md., 341. Mass Mut. Ins. Co. vs. Allen, 138 Mass., 24. " Palmer vs. Merrill, 6 Cush., 282. " Pingrey vs. Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 144 Mass., 374. N. J Folk vs. Janes, 49 N. J. Eq., 484. N Y Cannon vs. N. W. Mut., 29 Hun., 470. " Olmstead vs. Keyes, 85 N. Y., 593. " Steinback vs. Diepenbrock, 158 i\. Y., 24. Ohio Eckel vs. Renner, 41 Ohio St., 232. R. I Clark vs. Allen, u R. I., 439. Va Roller vs. Beam, 86 Va., 512. Wis Bursinger vs. Bank, 67 Wis., 75. U. S N. Y. Co. vs. Armstrong, 117 U. S., 591. ' Spring vs. Ins. Co., 21 U. S., 268. 92 ^ Mutual Benefit Certificates cannot generally be as- signed to a person who could not be the beneficiary. Ky Basye vs. Adams, 81 Ky., 368. Mass A. L. of H. vs. Perry, 140 Mass., 580. Mich K. of H. vs. Nairn, 60 Mich., 44. Ohio Nat. Mut. Aid vs. Gonser, 43 Ohio St, I. 93 An Assignment is governed by the Law of the Place where it is made. Conn Conn. Mut. vs. Westervelt, 52 Conn., 586. Ill Pomeroy vs. Manhattan Life, 40 111., 398. Ind Criswell vs. Whitney, 13 Ind. App., 67; 41 N. E., 78. " Union Cen. vs. Woods, n Ind. App., 335; 37 N. E., 180. Mass Mut. Life vs. Allen, 138 Mass., 24. Mich Mut. Ben. vs. Bank, 68 Mich., 116. N. Y Barry vs. Equitable, 59 N. Y., 587. " Miller vs. Campbell, 140 N. Y., 457; 35 N. E., 651. Tenn Pratt vs. Globe Mut. Life, 17 S. W., 352. 94 ** The Assignee need have no Insurable Interest, pro- vided the transaction is not a mere cover for a wager. Cal California Code, Sec. 2764. " Curtiss vs. Aetna, 90 Cal., 245. " Widamen vs. Hubbard, 88 Fed., 806. Col Sheets vs. Sheets, 4 Col. App. 450; 30 Pac., 310. Conn Fitzgerald vs. Hartford Life, 56 Conn., 116. Ga Union Frat. League vs. Walton, 109 Ga., i. Ill Bloomington Assn. vs. Blue, 120 111., 121; n N. E., 331. " Martin vs. Stubbings, 126 111., 387. " Moore vs. Chicago, etc., Assn. 52 N. E., 882. Ind Metropolitan Life vs. Brown, 65 N. E., 908. " Milner vs. Bowman, 21 N. E., 1004; 119 Ind., 448. Md N. Y., etc., Co. vs. Flack, 3 Md., 341. " Whitridge vs. Barry, 42 Md., 150. " Senders vs. Home Soc., 20 At., 137; 72 Md., 5ii. Mass Brown vs. Greenfield Assn., 53 N. E., 129. " Campbell vs. N. E. Mut., 98 Mass., 381. " Dixon vs. Nat. Life, 168 Mass., 48; 46 N. E., 430. ' Mut. Life vs. Allen, 138 Mass., 31. ' Palmer vs. Merrill, 6 Cush., 282. " Troy vs. Sargent, 132 Mass., 408. Mich Prudential vs. Liersch, 81 N. W., 258. Miss Murphy vs. Red, 64 Miss., 614; i So., 761. Neb Chamberlain vs. Butler, 86 N. W., 481. 97 N. J Trenton Mut. vs. Johnson, 24 N. J. L. (4 Zabr.), 576. N. Y Cannon vs. Mut. Life, 29 Hun, 470. " Hogle vs. Guardian Life, 4 Abb. N. S., 347. " Glassey vs. Met. Life, 65 N. Y. St., 493- " Rawles vs. Amer. Mut, 27 N. Y., 282. " Olmstead vs. Keyes, 85 M . Y., 593. " Sabin vs. Phinney, 134 N. Y., 423. " St. John vs. Amer. Mut, 13 N. Y., 31. 1 Smith vs. National Ben., 123 N. Y., 85. " Steinbach vs. Diepenbrock, 158 N. Y., 24. " Vallton vs. Nat. Life, 20 N. Y., 32. N. D N. D. Insurance Law, Sec. 4612. Ohio Echo vs. Renner, 41 Ohio St., 232. R. I Clark vs. Allen, 1 1 R. I., 441. S. C Cross well vs. Conn. Assn., 51 S. C, 103; 28 S. E., 200. Wis Bursinger vs. Bk. of Watertown, 30 N. W., 290; 67 Wis., 75. " Kurd vs. Doty, 86 Wis., i. " Strike vs. Wis. Co., 70 N. W., 819; 95 Wis., 583- Eng Ashley vs. Ashley, 3 Sim., 149. Fed Robinson vs. U. S. Assn., 68 Fed., 825. " Lamont vs. Hotel, etc., Assn., 30 Fed., 817. U. S See Conn. Ins. Co. vs. Shaefer, 94 U. S., 457. 95 Assignee must have an Insurable Interest. Ala Ala. Gold Life vs. Mobile Mut, 81 Ala., 329; i So., 561. " Helmetag vs. Miller, 76 Ala., 183. " Stoelker vs. Thorton, 6 So., 680 ; 88 Ala., 241. Ind Franklin Ins. Co. vs. Hazzard, 41 Ind., 116. ' Franklin Ins. Co. vs. Sef fton, 53 Ind., 380. " Kessler vs. Kuhns, 27 N. E., 980. Kan Mo. Co. vs. McCrum, 12 Pac., 517; 36 Kan., 146. " Mo. Co. vs. Sturgis, 18 Kan., 93. Ky Basye vs. Adams, 81 Ky., 368. " Settle vs. Hill, 5 Ky. L. R., 691. 98 Mich Lyon vs. Rolfe, 42 N. W., 1094. " Mich. Mut. vs. Rolfe, 76 Mich., 146. Mo Heusner vs. Mut. Life, 47 Mo. App., 336. Pa Gilbert vs. Moos, 104 Pa. St., 74. '* Hartig vs. Reeves, 2 Pa. Sup. Ct, 545. " Hoffman vs. Hoke, 122 Pa. St., 377; 15 At, 437. " Keystone Mut. vs. Norris, 8 At., 638. " Ruth vs. Katterman, 112 Pa. St., 257; 3 At, 833. " Stambaugh vs. Blake, 15 At., 705. Tenn Clement vs. N. Y. Life, 46 S. W., 561; 101 Tenn., 22. Tex Price vs. Sup. Lodge, 4 S. W., 633; 68 Tex., 361. " Shonfield vs. Turner, 12 S. W., 626; 75 Tex., 324. U. S Cammack vs. Lewis, 15 Wall., 643. 1 Warnock vs. Davis, 104 U. S., 775. See in this connection : Indiana Insur- ance Law, Sec. 130; Missouri Ins. Law, Sec. 7907; Pennsylvania Laws, 1883, and Insurance Law of Illinois. (Assessment Insurance.) 96 Termination of Assignee's Insurable Interest does not invalidate the assignment. Fed .Manhattan Life vs. Hennessy, 99 Fed., 64. 97 No particular form of Words need be used to make an assignment so long as a clear intent to assign is shown. Ill St Clair Soc. vs. Fietsam, 97 111., 474. " Swift vs. Ry. Assn., 96 111., 309. Me Garnsey vs. Gardner, 49 Me., 167. Miss Pass vs. McCrea, 36 Miss., 143. Mo Kimball vs. Donald, 20 Mo., 577. 99 98 // the Assignment is delivered, it is not necessary to also deliver the policy. Pa Scott vs. Dixon, 108 Pa. St., 6. Tex Burgess vs. N. Y. Life, 53 S. W., 602. Neale vs. Molineaux, I. Car. & K., 672. 99 Assignment need not be in writing, but in such cases the policy must be delivered. M]d N. Y. Life vs. Flack, 3 Md., 341. Mass Hewins vs. Baker, 161 Mass., 320. Minn Hogue vs. Minn. Co., 59 Minn., 39. Mo Chapman vs. Mcllwrath, 77 Mo., 38. N. J Trav. Ins. Co. vs. Brandt, 33 At., 1060. N. Y Marcus vs. St. Louis Mut, 68 N. Y., 625. S. C Macauley vs. Central Nat. Bk., 27 S C, 215; 3 S. K, 193- Tenn Hancock vs. Fidelity Mut, 53 S. W., 181. Tex Lord vs. N. Y. Life, 66 S. W., 290. 1OO A Life Insurance Contract may be the subject of a gift causa mortis or inter vivos. N. J Trav. vs. Grant, 33 At, 1060. Tex Lord vs. N. Y. Life, 66 S. W., 290. See also : Ala Lehman vs. Gunn, 27 So., 475. Ill Weaver vs. Weaver, 52 N. E., 338. 101 Where the contract requires the Consent of the Insurer to an Assignment, the parties to the Assignment cannot object because such consent was not obtained. Ky Embry's Adm. vs. Harris, 52 S. W., 958. " Lee vs. Murrell, 9 Ky. L. R., 104. Mass Hewins vs. Baker, 37 N. E., 441. Minn Hogue vs. Minn. Co., 60 N. W., 812. N. H Brown vs. Mansur, 64 N. H., 39; 5 At, 768. 100 102 Absence of Insurer's Consent to an Assignment, even when required, will not prevent assignee from receiving the proceeds. Mass Richardson vs. White, 44 N. E., 1072. N. Y Marcus vs. St. Louis Mut, 68 N. Y., 625. Tenn Mut, etc., Co. vs. Hamilton, 37 Tenn. (5 Sneed), 269. But see : La Moise vs. Mut. Reserve, 13 So., 170; 45 La. Ann. Pa Nat. Mut vs. Lupold, 101 Pa. St., in. Fed Harmon vs. Lewis, 24 Fed., 97. 103 The Insurer may assign his interest in the insurance contract. Ala Helmetag vs. Miller, 76 Ala., 183. Mass Atlantic Mut vs. Gannon, 60 N. E., 933. N. J Trav. Ins. Co. vs. Grant, 33 At, 1060. N. Y Miller vs. Campbell, 140 N. Y., 457. Ohio Eckel vs. Renner, 41 Ohio St., 232. Tenn Hancock vs. Fidelity Mut, 53 S. W., 181. U. S Roberts vs. Phoenix Life, 120 U. S., 86. 104 A Beneficiary may assign his interest in the insurance contract. (See 105.) Ind Damron vs. Penn Mut, 99 Ind., 478. La Succession of Richardson, 14 La. Ann., I. Md Harrison vs. McConkey, i Md. Chan., 34. " Hewlett vs. Home, etc., 74 Md., 350 ; 24 At., 324. " N. Y. Life vs. Flack, 3 Md. } 341. Miss... . . .Murphy vs. Red., 64 Miss, 614. Mo Baker vs. Young, 47 Mo., 453. " Charter Oak Life vs. Brant, 47 Mo., 419. N. Y Lawler vs. Nat Assn., 31 N. Y., Supp., 875. " Ferdon vs. Canfield, 39 Hun., 571. " St. John vs. Amer. Mut, 13 N. Y., 31. " Valton vs. Nat Loan Assn., 20 N. Y., 32. 101 Ohio Eckel vs. Renner, 41 Ohio St., 232. Pa Cunningham vs. Smith, 70 Pa. St., 450. R. I Clark vs. Allen, 1 1 R. I., 439. Wis Archibald vs. Mut. Life, 38 Wis., 542. U. S Mut. Life vs. Armstrong, 117 U. S., 591. ' Robinson vs. Mut. Ben., 16 Blatchf., 194. 1O5 In the absence of special statute, if a married woman has control of her property, and may transfer it, she may also transfer her interest in an insurance contract. Col Collins vs. Dawley, 4 Colo., 138. Conn Chapin vs. Fellowes, 36 Conn., 132. 1 Conn. Mut. vs. Berroughs, 34 Conn., 305. ! Phoenix Life vs. Opper, 58 At., 586. Ill Norwood vs. Gordon, 60 111., 253. " Pomeroy vs. Manhattan Life, 40 111., 398. Ind Damron vs. Pa. Mut., 99 Ind., 478. " Pence vs. Makepeace, 65 Ind., 345. Md Emerick vs. Coakley, 35 Md., 192. Mass Knickerbocker Life vs. Weitz, 99 Mass., 294. Mo Charter Oak vs. Brandt, 47 Mo., 419. N. J De Ronga vs. Elliott, 23 N. J. Eq., 486. Pa Brown's Appeal, 125 Pa. St., 303. R. I Sup. Assembly vs. Campbell, 17 R. I., 402. Tenn Scobey vs. Waters, 10 Lea., 551. But see: Mass Unity Mjut. vs. Dugan, 118 Mass., 219. 1O6 The following States have laws directly referring to the assignment of life insurance contracts by married women : New Jersey, New York, Ohio and Wisconsin. See: N. Y Morschauser vs. Pierce, 72 N. Y., Supp., 328. " Dannhauser vs. Wallenstein, 62 N. E., 160. " Miller vs. Campbell, 140 N. Y., 457. " Spencer vs. Myers, 150 N. Y., 269; 44 N. E., 942. " Trav. Ins. Co. vs. Healy, 86 Hun., 524. " Eadie vs. Slimmon, 26 N. Y., 9. 102 N.Y Barry vs. Equitable, 59 N. Y., 587. " Wilson vs. Lawrence, 76 N. Y., 585. " Brick vs. Campbell, 122 N. Y., 337; 25 N. E., 493- '' Stokes vs. Ammerman, 121 N. Y., 337; 24 N. K, 819. N. Y Sherman vs. Allison, 80 N. Y. Supp., 148. Wis Ellison vs. Straw, 92 N. W., 1094 (before the statute) . 107 Where the Assignment is a Wagering transaction, the assignee may hold as his own only the amount of the debt due him from the insured. Pa Cooper vs. Weaver, n At, 780. " Stambaugh vs. Blake, 15 Atl., 705. U. S Cammack vs. Lewis, 15 Wall, 643. ' Warnock vs. Davis, 104 U. S., 775. 108 A Creditor Assigee under an Absolute Assignment may hold the entire proceeds as his own unless the assignment is a wagering transaction (107). Conn Bevin vs. Conn. Mut., 23, Conn., 244. Ind Amick vs. Butler, in Ind., 578; 12 N. E., 518. Minn Hale vs. Life, etc., Co., 68 N. W., 182. Miss Murphy vs. Red, 64 Miss., 614. N. Y Ferguson vs. Mut., 102 N. Y., 647. [ Grattan vs. Nat. Life, 15 Hun., 74. " Steinbach vs. Diepenbrock, 158 N. Y., 24; 52 N. E., 662. Pa Grant vs. Kline, 115 Pa. St., 618; 9 At., 150. " Ruth vs. Katterman, 112 Pa. St., 351. See sections 2764, 2766, of California Code. 109 Even though the Assignment be Absolute and Valid, a Creditor Assignee may hold only so much of the insur- ance proceeds as is necessary for his indemnity. Ala Culver vs. Guyer, 29 So., 799. 103 Ala Helmetag vs. Miller, 76 Ala., 183. Cal Widaman vs. Hubbard, 98 Fed., 806. Ky Barber's Admr. vs. Larue's Assignee, 51 S. W., 5. Mich Met. Life vs. O'Brien, 92 Mich., 584. Mo Mutual Life vs. Richards, 72 S. W., 486. Tenn Rison Vs. Wilkeson, 3 Sneed, 565. Tex Cawthorne vs. Perry, 13 S. W., 268. " Equitable vs. Hazlewood, 12 S. W., 621. " Lewy vs. Gillard, 13 S. W., 304. Va First Nat. Bk. vs. Speece, 37 S. E., 843. ' Roller vs. Moore, 86 Va., 517; 10 S. E., 241. U. S Crotty vs. Union Mut., 12 S. C. R., 749. See California Code sections 2764, 2766. 110 An Absolute Assignment may be shown to have been made as Collateral Security. Mass Dickson vs. Nat. Life, 46 N. E., 430. Mich McDonald vs. Birss, 58 N. W., 357. Utah Jones vs. N. Y. Life, 50 Pac., 620. Va Roller vs. Moore, 86 Va., 512; 10 S. E., 241. See also : N. J Lance vs. Bonnell, 43 At., 288. Ill Under an Assignment as Collateral Security, the as- signee may hold as his own only so much of the proceeds as is necessary for his indemnity. Ga Exchange Bank vs. Loh, 31 S. E., 459. " Morris vs. Ga. Assn., 24 S. E., 378. Mich McDonald vs. Birss, 58 N. W., 359- Utah Jones vs. N. Y. Life, 50 Pac., 620. 112 Assignment may be set aside if procured by Fraud or V JJia/lita J vi flu oin rt> * J.OO PJCraWW W99 rft Undue Influence. Undue Influence. Ark Mente vs. Townsend, 59 S. W., 41. Conn Conn. Mut. vs. Westervelt, 52 Conn., 586. Md Whitridge vs. Barry, 42 Md., 140. 104 Mich Mut Ins. Co. vs. Wayne Sav. Bk., 68 Mich., 116; 35 N. W.,853. N. Y Barry vs. Brune, 8 Hun, 395 ; 71 N. Y., 261. : Barry vs. Equitable, 59 N. Y., 587. ' Eadie vs. Slimmon, 26 N. Y., 9. " Fowler vs. Butterly, 78 N. Y., 68. Pa McCutcheon's Appeal, 99 Pa. St., 133. 113 Assignment may be set aside if made in Fraud of Creditors. Ind Rodwell vs. Johnson, 52 N. E., 798. Tex Burges vs. N. Y. Life, 53 S. W., 602. Fed Aetna Bank vs. Manhattan Life, 24 Fed., 769. 114 A Wife has an Insurable Interest in the life of her Husband. Conn Continental Life vs. Palmer, 42 Conn., 60. Ind Hutson vs. Merrifield, 51 Ind., 24. Mo Gambs vs. Covenant Mutual, 50 Mo., 44. " McKee vs. Phoenix Ins. Co., 28 Mo., 383. N. Y Baker vs. Union Mutual, 43 N. Y., 283. U. S Conn. Mut. vs. Schaef f er, 94 U. S., 457. " .Washington, etc., Bank vs. Hume, 128 U. S., I95 ' c 1 See also : Ga Equitable Soc. vs. Patterson, 41 Ga., 338. Vt Currier vs. Continental Life, 57 Vt., 496. 115 A Husband has an Insurable Interest in the life of his Wife. Vt Currier vs. Continental Life, 57 Vt, 496. 116 A Partner has an Insurable Interest in the life of his Co-Partner. Conn Bevin vs. Conn. Mutual, 23 Conn., 244. 105 Mass Morrell vs. Trenton, etc., Co., 10 Cush., 282. N. J Trenton Mutual vs. Johnson, 4 Zabr., 576. N. Y Hoyt vs. N. Y. Life, 3 Bosw., 440. U. S Conn. Mutual vs. Luchs, 108 U. S., 498. But see : N. C Powell vs. Dewey, 123 N. C, 103, 105. 117 Bondsman has an Insurable Interest in the life of his Principal. Pa Scott vs. Dickson, 108 Pa. St., 6. 118 Bondsman has an Insurable Interest in the life of his Co -Surety. Eng Brandford vs. Saundres, 25 W. R., 650. 119 A tenant has an Insurable Interest in the life of his Landlord whose term is of indefinite duration. Fed Sides vs. Knickerbocker Life, 16 Fed., 650. 12O A Master has an Insurable Interest in the life of a Servant who is bound to him for a term. La Summers vs. U. S., etc., Trust Co., 13 La. An., 504. N. J Trenton Mutual vs. Johnson, 24 N. J., 576. N. Y Miller vs. Eagle Ins. Co., 2 E. D. Smith, 268, 292. N C Woodfin vs. Asheville, etc., Co., 6 Jones L., 558. 121 A Servant has an Insurable Interest in the life of a Master with whom he has a contract for a term. Eng Hebden vs. West, in W. R., 422. 1 06 122 A Child has an Insurable Interest in the life of his Parent. Me Mitchell vs. Union Life, 45 Me., 104. Mass Forbes vs. American Mutual, 15 Gray, 249. " Loomis vs. Eagle Life, 6 Gray, 396. N. Y Gratton vs. National Life, 15 Mun., 74. Pa Reserve Mutual vs. Kane, 81 Pa. St., 154. Va Valley Mut. vs. Terwalt, 79 Va., 421. But see : 111 Guardian Mutual vs. Hogan, 80 111., 35. Ky Metropolitan Life vs. Blesch, 58 S. W. 436. Fed Life, etc., Co. vs. O'Neil, 106 Fed., 800. 123 Brothers and Sisters have no Insurable Interest in the lives of one another. Conn Bevin vs. Ins. Co., 23 Conn., 244. " Lewis vs. Phoenix Mutual, 39 Conn., 100. la Farmers' Bk. vs. Johnson, 91 Vv ., 1074. Mo Reynolds vs. Prudential, 88 Mo. App., 679. But see : Mass Lord vs. Dall, 12 Mass., 115. Mo Sternberg vs. Levy, 169 S. W., 1114. U. S Aetna Life vs. France, 94 U. S., 561. 107 INDEX. (Number refer to pages.) ABSOLUTE ASSIGNMENT. See ASSIGNMENT. ASSIGNABILITY: PAGE. Of a Life Insurance Policy 38, 96 Of a Mutual Benefit Certificate 38, 96 ASSIGNMENT:-^ Definition 38 Words used, Form of 40, 41, 99 May be oral or written 41, 100 Delivery 41, 100 Consideration 38 Assignment of entire chose in action 38 Assignment of part of chose in action 38, 95 Notice to Insurer 40 Consent of Insurer 41, 100, 101 What Law governs 39, 96 Who must join in Absolute Assignment 43 Assignee brings action at Law, When 38 Assignee brings action in Equity, When 38 Assignee brings action in Assignor's name, When. 38 Assignee brings action in his own name, When 38 Assignment by Beneficiary 43, 101 Assignment by Insured 43, 101 Assignment by Married Woman 43, 102 Absolute Assignment. Amount of Proceeds re- ceived by Assignee 44 Absolute Assignment may be shown to have been made as Collateral Security 45, 104 Assignment as Collateral 45 Assignment to Creditor; Amount received by as- signee : Absolute Assignment 44, 103 Assignment as Collateral 44, 104 109 INDEX. PAGE. When Assignment is a Wagering transaction. 44, 103 Assignment in Fraud of Creditors 46, 105 Fraud and undue influence 46, 104 See also INSURABLE INTEREST, ASSIGNABIL- ITY, CHANGE OF BENEFICIARY, FORMS OF AS- SIGNMENT, GIFT. BANKRUPTCY : U. S. Bankruptcy Act of 1898, Sec. ;oa-5 15 State Exemption Laws, Sec. 6 15 Where policy has a Cash Surrender Value 16 Where policy has no Cash Surrender Value 16 Where policy not payable to Bankrupt 17, 18 Endowment Policies 18 BENEFICIARY: Definition 3 Beneficiary may sue on the contract 4, 60 Payment to wrong person 4 Regular Life Insurance Policy, Who may be Beneficiary 8 Mutual Benefit Insurance: Who may be a Beneficiary 8, 64 Prescribed Class 8, 64 When Beneficiary is not within Prescribed Class 8, 64 Charter, By-laws, etc., Construction of 8, 65 Statutes, Compliance with 8, 9 Enlarging Statutes 9, 66 Restricting Statutes 9, 66 Waiver of Requirements by Society 9 Absence of valid designation of Beneficiary 9, 10, 66 Definition of Beneficiary a testamentary act. 9, 66 Creditor as Beneficiary 10 Wager Policy n, 68 May hold entire proceeds, When n, 12, 68 May not hold entire proceeds, When. . n, 12, 68 Words used to designate the Beneficiary, Con- struction of: "As his interest may appear" 22 no INDEX. PAGE. Child. Adopted 24, 78 Children born after consummation of con- tract 24, 25, 79 "Children" Does not include children of wife by former husband 25, 79 "Children" Includes children of insured by former or subsequent wife 25, 79 "Children" Does not include grandchildren. 24, 78 "Dependents" , 22, 75, 76 "Estate" 20, 72 "Heirs" 21, 72 "Heirs, executors, administrators and as- signs" 20, 72 "Husband and Children;" shares received 24 "If living" 21, 74 "Legal Representatives" 21, 73 "Relatives" 22, 74, 75 "Widow" 23, 77 "Wife" 22, 23, 77 "Wife and Children;" shares received. 23, 77, 78 "Wife and Their Children" 25, 79 "Wife and in the event of her prior death to the Children" 27, 35, 83, 93 See also WIFE'S POLICY, DEATH OF BENEFI- CIARY, INSURABLE INTEREST, CREDITOR, DI- VORCE, MARRIAGE, INTEREST OF BENEFI- CIARY, CHANGE OF BENEFICIARY, ASSIGN- MENT. CASES CITED 60 CHANGE OF BENEFICIARY MUTUAL BENEFIT INSURANCE: When insured may change 28, 84 Usual requirements 29 Where member may only apportion 29, 84 W r here change is prohibited 29, 84 Membership in Mutual Benefit Society gives right to Change the Beneficiary 30, 85 Change of By-laws, Effect of 32, 87 III INDEX. CHANGE OF BENEFICIARY REGULAR LIFlflN- SURANCE : When insured may Change Beneficiary 28, 86 Change of Beneficiary Clause. The 28, 30, 86 CHANGE OF BENEFICIARY IN GENERAL: Compliance with Rules and By-laws, etc. . 31, 32, 33, 86, 90 "By complying with the Laws," construed 32, 87 Absence of Requirements 32, 33, 87, 91 Consent of Insurer 32 Refusal of Consent by Insurer 32, 88 Waiver of Strict Compliance by Insurer 32, 88 Where Policy or Certificate is lost or cannot be surrendered 32, 89 Where Insured does all in his power to make the Change, but dies before the Insurer makes the Change 32, 89 Assignment, Effect of, on right to Change the Beneficiary 41 Fraud or Undue Influence, Effect of 33, 90 Change of Beneficiary by Will, when permit- ted 33, 90, 91 Change of Beneficiary by Will, when not permit- ted 33, 90, 91 When insured takes out the insurance and pays the premiums, he may dispose of the contract as he chooses Wisconsin rule 33, 34, 91 CITATIONS 60 COLLATERAL, ASSIGNMENT AS. See ASSIGN- MENT. CONSENT OF INSURER. See ASSIGNMENT AND CHANGE OF BENEFICIARY. CONSIDERATION FOR ASSIGNMENT. See AS- SIGNMENT. CONTRACT. See LIFE INSURANCE CONTRACT. CREDITOR AS ASSIGNEE. See ASSIGNMENT. CREDITOR AS BENEFICIARY. See BENEFICIARY. CREDITOR OF BENEFICIARY OR INSURED RIGHT TO PROCEED AGAINST PROCEEDS : Mutual Benefit Insurance 12, 68 I 12 INDEX. PAGE. Mutual Benefit Insurance ; Exempting Statutes. 12, 69 Regular Life Insurance 12, 69 Premiums paid in Fraud of Creditors 12, 69 Policy purchased with misappropriated funds 15 See also BANKRUPTCY, WIFE'S POLICY. DEATH OF BENEFICIARY : Death of Sole Beneficiary : Mutual Benefit Insurance 34, 91 Regular Life Insurance 35, 92 Death of one of several Beneficiaries : Mutual Benefit Insurance 36, 94 Regular Life Insurance 36, 94 Common Disaster, Death of Insured and Benefi- ciary or of two Beneficiaries in 21, 22 No Presumption of Survivorship 21, 22 ,74 Policy payable to Wife and, in the event of her prior death, to Children: Death of Child 27, 35, 83, 93 Death of Wife 27, 35, 83, 93 Policy payable to Children ; Death of Child. 24, 36, 92, 94 Mutual Benefit Certificate payable to Children; Death of Child 24, 36, 91, 94 Death of Beneficiary who is a married woman. 35, 93 DEFINITIONS. See ASSIGNMENT, BENEFICI- ARY, ENDOWMENT POLICY, LIFE INSURANCE CONTRACT. DELIVERY. See ASSIGNMENT. DIVORCE OF BENEFICIARY FROM INSURED: Mutual Benefit Insurance, Effect in 22, 23, 76 Regular Life Insurance, Effect of 22, 76 ENDOWMENT POLICY DEFINITION AND AN- ALYSIS 3, 18 FORMS OF ASSIGNMENTS: Absolute Assignment 48, 49 Absolute Assignment with express Power of At- torney 50 Absolute Assignment conditional upon Survival of Assignee 54 113 INDEX. PAGE. Absolute Assignment of Life Interest in Endow- ment Policy 51 Absolute Assignment of Life Interest in Endow- ment Policy conditional upon Survival of As- signee 52 Absolute Assignment in Consideration of Love and Affection Conditional upon Death of the Insured prior to end of Endowment Period and Survival of Assignee 52 Assignment as Collateral 54, 55, 56 Assignment as Collateral with express Power of Attorney 57 Re-Assignment 59 Release of Assignment 58, 59 FRAUD AND UNDUE INFLUENCE. See ASSIGN- MENT, CHANGE OF BENEFICIARY. FRAUD OF CREDITORS. See ASSIGNMENT, CREDITOR. GIFT CAUSA MORTIS or INTER VIVOS. .. 41, TOO INSURABLE INTEREST: What Insurable Interest is 4 Common Law Rule 5, 61 Statute of 14 Geo. III., ch. 48 5 Insurable Interest necessary for valid Contract of Insurance 4, 6 Mere Relationship insufficient 4, 5, 60 Must be a Pecuniary Interest 4 Policy taken out by the Insured: Beneficiary must have Insurable Interest. . . 6, 63 Beneficiary need not have Insurable Inter- est 5, 6, 62 Policy taken out by someone other than Insured. 5, 61 Assignee need not have Insurable Interest... 39, 97 Assignee must have Insurable Interest 39, 98 Who has an Insurable Interest : Bondsmen in Life of Co-Surety. 5, 106 Bondsmen in Life of Principal 5, 106 Brother in Life of Sister 5, 107 Child in Life of Parent 5, 107 Creditor in Life of Debtor 5, 10, 67 114 INDEX. PAGE. Husband in Life of Wife 5, 105 Insured in his Own Life 5 Master in Life of Servant 5, 106 Partner in Life of Co-partner 5, 105 Servant in Life of Master 5, 106 Sister in Life of Brother 5, 106 Tenant in Life of Landlord 5, 106 Wife in Life of Husband 4, 105 Termination of Assignee's Insurable Interest. . 40, 99 Termination of Beneficiary's Insurable Interest. 7, 63 INTEREST OF BENEFICIARY: Vested on Death of Insured, Becomes 26, 80 When Beneficiary cannot be Changed 26 Where Beneficiary may be Changed 26, 30, 81 Regular Life Insurance Policy, interest of Bene- ficiary 26, 80 Contract between Beneficiary and Insured, Effect of 26, 27, 82 Possession of Policy or Certificate by Benefici- ary, Effect of 27, 83 Wife and, in the event of her Prior Death, to the Children, Policy payable to : Interest of Wife 27, 35, 83, 93 Interest of Children 27, 35, 83, 93 Interest of Minor 27, 83, 84 See also SURRENDER OF POLICY, CHANGE OF BENEFICIARY, DEATH OF BENEFICIARY. JOINT BENEFICIARIES. See DEATH OF BENE- FICIARY. LIFE INSURANCE CONTRACT. DEFINITION OF 3, 7 MARRIAGE OF INSURED, EFFECT ON MU- TUAL BENEFIT CERTIFICATE 36, 94, 95 MARRIED WOMAN. See ASSIGNMENT, DIVORCE, WIFE'S POLICY, DEATH OF BENEFICIARY. MURDER OF INSURED : By Assignee or his predecessor in interest. ... 46, 95 By Beneficiary 36, 95 INDEX. PAGE. NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT. See ASSIGNMENT. PRESUMPTION OF SURVIVORSHIP. See DEATH OF BENEFICIARY. RE-ASSIGNMENT, FORM OF. See FORMS OF AS- SIGNMENT. RELEASE OF ASSIGNMENT, FORM OF. See FORMS OF ASSIGNMENT. SHARES RECEIVED WHEN MORE THAN ONE BENEFICIARY. See BENEFICIARY. SURRENDER OF POLICY 27, 83, 84 SURVIVORSHIP, PRESUMPTION OF. See DEATH OF BENEFICIARY. UNDUE INFLUENCE. See ASSIGNMENT, CHANGE OF BENEFICIARY. VESTED INTEREST. See INTEREST OF BENE- FICIARY. WAGER POLICY. See BENEFICIARY, INSUR- ABLE INTEREST. WAIVER BY INSURER. See BENEFICIARY, CHANGE OF BENEFICIARY. WIFE'S POLICY. Creditors of Insured 12, 13, 70 Wife's policy Laws 12, 13, 70 New York Statute 13 Alabama Rule 14 Other State Statutes 13, 70 Endowment Policy 14. 7 1 Policy assigned to Wife or Married Woman. . 14. 71 Creditors of Wife Beneficiary 14, 15, 71 Policy purchased with Misappropriated Funds. ... 15 Change of Beneficiary Clause in Wife's policy, Effect of 31 Assignment of Wife's Policy. See ASSIGN- MENT. See also DEATH OF BENEFICIARY. WISCONSIN RULE. See CHANGE OF BENEFICI- ARY. 116 YC166240 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE STAMPED BELOW Novioita 30m-l,'15 9/15/461 Mending Pricke, C./. _ The law Qf life - p8 S^ov 10 -j ^fe-*y* /I