1. The policy of insurance issued by complainant company provided that no assignment of the policy should be binding on the insurer unless filed with it. As between defendants, husband and wife, a valid gift of the policy, or of an interest therein, could be made without written assignment or notification of assignment to the insurer.
2. A valid gift of the policy could be effected in the manner in which the defendant wife claims it was made, namely, by delivery of the policy to her accompanied by words indicating an intention to make a gift, and the subsequent retention of the policy by the wife.
3. The defendant husband separated from his wife, and upon resuming living together, named his wife beneficiary of the policy in question, instead of his mother. He delivered the policy to the wife and, after later separating from her again, made no attempt to regain possession of it or displace her as beneficiary thereunder. Held, the defendant wife's possession of the policy and her testimony as to how and why it came into her possession, supported by the circumstances and probabilities of the case, establish her claim to one-half of the fund paid into court by the complainant insurance company.
PER CURIAM.
The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the conclusions of Vice-Chancellor Fielder.
For affirmance — THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, TRENCHARD, PARKER, CAMPBELL, LLOYD, CASE, BODINE, DALY, DONGES, VAN BUSKIRK, KAYS, HETFIELD, DEAR, WELLS, KERNEY, JJ. 15.
For reversal — None.