Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

CITY SAVINGS BANK v. WHITTLE a.

The beneficial interest in a policy of insurance procured by a father on his life, for the benefit of and payable to his minor son, vests in the son upon the delivery of the policy, and a subsequent assignment of the policy by the father as security for his own debt conveys no title. If the son joins in the assignment he may avoid it, but he must pay the assignee the premiums necessarily paid by him to keep the policy in force while it was rightfully in his possession. Damages may be apportioned among several defendants by separate judgments, if justice will be done by such procedure.

CLARK, J.

As H. F. Whittle signed the note as surety, and received no benefit from it, his plea of infancy is a defence to the note. The beneficial interest in the life insurance policy procured for his benefit, and made payable to him, became vested in him when the policy was issued. Kimball v. Gilman, 60 N.H. 54; Stokell v. Kimball, 59 N.H. 13; Bowers v. Parker, 58 N.H. 565; May Insurance, s. 392. His father's assignment gave the bank no title to the proceeds of the policy. The minor's assignment though voidable, was valid until it was disaffirmed by him. The bank was rightfully in possession of the policy, and the assignment was an implied request and authority to do what was necessary to keep it in force and protect the insurance. The payment of the premiums by the bank, necessary to keep the policy on foot, was by the implied request and authority of H. F. Whittle and for his benefit, and may be treated as made in his behalf; and by claiming and receiving the benefit of the payments, he ratified them and became liable to the bank therefor. Unity Association v. Dugan, 118 Mass. 219; Hall v. Butterfield, 59 N.H. 354; Bartlett v. Bailey, 59 N.H. 408.

The plaintiff can have judgment against both defendants for the amount of the premiums paid and costs; and the trustee is chargeable for that amount. The plaintiff can also have judgment against J. F. Whittle for the amount due on the note without costs. Cole v. Gilford, ante 60; Chauncy v. Insurance Co., 60 N.H. 428.

Case discharged.

ALLEN, J., did not sit: the others concurred.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

BANK v. WHITTLE
(Dec 1, 1885)