This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1891 Excerpt: ...in the contract, it follows that any attempt to divest him of such right without his consent is an utter nullity, and that his right to the whole value of the contract continues unimpaired.1 75. Reservation of right to assign without such consent.--Of course, the right to divest the interest of the beneficiary without ...
Read More
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1891 Excerpt: ...in the contract, it follows that any attempt to divest him of such right without his consent is an utter nullity, and that his right to the whole value of the contract continues unimpaired.1 75. Reservation of right to assign without such consent.--Of course, the right to divest the interest of the beneficiary without his consent, maybe reserved in any contract of insurance,2 but it is especially in case of mutual benefit the fact of the delivery of the policy. Brockhaus v. Kemna, 7 Fed. Rep. 609 (1881), was a case of a paid-up policy, where the insured, having himself received the insurance money as guardian of the beneficiary, was declared to hold it for her benefit. In Pilcher v. N. Y. Co., 33 La. Ann. 322 (1881), the wife of the insured was the beneficiary, and paid the premiums. But the same rule was applied, in Putnam v. N. Y. Co., 7 Southern Rep. 602 (Supm. Ct. La. 1890), where the husband paid the premiums. In Garner v. Germania Co., no N. Y. 266 (1888), the policy was expressed to be in trust for the children of the insured. He did not deliver the policy to them, but kept it in his own possession, and paid the premiums out of his own moneys. Yet there was held to be an irrevocable interest. In Butler v. State Mutual Co., 55 Hun, 296 (1890), the policy was taken out in favor of B in trust for S, who was not related to the insured. Held that, on delivery of the policy to B, S took a vested interest in the policy, that could not, without her consent, be divested, though it would seem that the insured paid the premiums himself. In Phipard v. Phipard, 55 Hun, 433 (1890), the evidence was held sufficient to impress a policy with a trust in favor of persons who were not named in the policy, but to one of whom there was a constructive delivery of it...
Read Less
