The policy in question was the separate property of the wife, and her death prior to that of her husband did not change its character from separate property to community property. (Harley v. Heist , 86 Ind. 199; 44 Am. Rep. 285.) After the husband had designated his wife as beneficiary and payee of the policy he ceased to control it, and he could not thereafter change or alter it. (Griffith v. New York Life Ins. Co ., 101 Cal. 627; 40 Am. St. Rep. 96; Ricker v. Charter Oak Ins. Co ., 27 Minn. 195; 38 Am. Rep. 289; Duclos v. Citizens' Mut. Ins. Co ., 23 La. Ann. 332; Bliss on Life Insurance, pars. 339-41, and cases cited; Timayens v. Union Mut. Life Ins. Co ., 21 F. 223; Bliss on Life Insurance, 2d ed., 517; Hoyle v. Guardian Life Ins. Co ., 6 Rob. (N. Y.) 567; 4 Abb. Pr., N. S., 346; Smith v. Aetna Life Ins. Co ., 5 Lans. 545; Gould v. Emerson , 99 Mass. 154; 96 Am. Dec. 720; Chapin v. Fellowes , 36 Conn. 132; 4 Am. Rep. 49; Fraternal etc. Ins. Co. v. Applegate, 7 Ohio St. 292; Ruppert v. Union Mut. Co ., 7 Rob. (N. Y.) 155; Harley v. Heist , 86 Ind. 204; 44 Am. Rep. 285; Wilburn v. Wilburn , 83 Ind. 55; Pilcher v. New York Life Ins. Co ., 33 La. Ann. 322; Trager v. Louisiana etc. Ins. Co ., 31 La. Ann. 235; Whitehead v. New York Life Ins. Co ., 102 N.Y. 143; 55 Am. Rep. 787; Schneider v. United States Life Ins. Co ., 123 N.Y. 109; 20 Am. St. Rep. 727; Garner v. Germania Life Ins. Co ., 110 N.Y. 266; National Life Ins. Co. v. Haley , 78 Me. 268; 57 Am. Rep. 807; Hubbard v. Stapp , 32 Ill.App. 541; Packard v. Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co ., 9 Mo.App. 469; Central Bank v. Hume , 128 U.S. 195.) In such case the legal representative of the insured has no claim upon the money, and cannot maintain an action therefor. It forms no part of the assets of the estate of the insured. (Winterhalter v. Workmen's etc. Fund Assn ., 75 Cal. 248; Pence v. Makepeace , 65 Ind. 345.) For the general purpose of life insurance, see Griswold v. Sawyer , 125 N.Y. 411.
OPINION
THE COURT The judgment filed in this case on December 31, 1894, reversing the judgment appealed from, was entered through inadvertence, and the same is therefore vacated and set aside; and now, upon the authority of the case of the Estate of Dobbel , 104 Cal. 432, the judgment of the court below is affirmed.