THE MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
BESSIE HARTLEY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Mutual Life Insurance Company appealed a judgment in favor of a widow who sued on her deceased husband's life insurance policy. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the insurance company's defense claiming the policy had been surrendered for cash value was defective because it failed to allege the beneficiary's consent to the surrender.
The pleas were subject to demurrer and properly overruled. The judgment in favor of the plaintiff upon the sustained demurrer to the pleas is affirmed because the pleas failed to allege the beneficiary's consent to the surrender and cancellation of the policy.
“The pleas do not aver the consent or acquiescence of the beneficiar y (the plaintiff) in the asserted surrender and cancellation of the policy and admit that the cash surrender value of the policy was not paid. The pleas therefore were subject to the demurrer interposed”
Establishes the fatal defect in the insurance company's defense—failure to allege beneficiary consent to the policy surrender
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA widow brought an action on a life insurance policy originally payable to her deceased husband. The policy was later made payable to the plaintiff wi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Jurisdiction Of The Court cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, P. J.
The writ of error herein, issued by the Clerk of the Circuit Court, is tested in the name of á former Chief Justice of this court who was not a member of the court when the writ of error was issued. The writ is therefore ineffectual unless it is amendable, since the statute provides that “all writs of error shall be tested in the name of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. ’ ’ Sec. 2908, Rev. Gen. Stats., 1920.
In Williams v. Pitt, 38 Fla. 162, 20 South. Rep. 936, the writ was tested in the name of a former Chief Justice who was then a member of the court, and the error was held to be amendable. See Long v. Farmers’ State Bank, 147 Fed. Rep. 360, 77 CCC. A. 538, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 585, 3 C. J 1209.
. Where a writ of error is made returnable to a day not authorized by law, the writ is ineffectual and will be dismissed. Driggs v. Higgins, 19 Fla. 103; Rye v. Banks, 66 Fla. 434, 63 South. Rep. 825; Savannah, F. & W. Ry. Co. v. Justice, 41 Fla. 508, 26 South. Rep. 704; Anderson v. State, 73 Fla. 86, 74 South. Rep. 6.
When a purported writ of error is not even colorably the writ of the court to which it is returnable, it is not amendable and will be dismissed. Bondurant v. Watson, 103 U. S. 278.
Writs of error may be amended' as to parties and a& to formal defects upon due application. West v. Johnson, 66 Fla. 4, 62 South. Rep. 913; Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Kirk, 111 U. S. 486, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 500; Long v. Farmers’ State Bank, supra.
The English statute of 5 Geo. 1, Ch. 13, provides: ‘ ‘ That all writs of error wherein there should be any variance from the original record, or other defect, may and shall be amended and made agreeable to such record by the' respective courts where such writ or writs of error shall be made returnable.” This statute is in force in this State (Thomp. Comp. Manuscript, page 38), unless it is superseded by the 74th section, Chap. 1096, laws 1861, and if it is so superseded, the same power is vested in the courts under the 74th section, now section 2629, Revised General Statutes, 1920. Loring v. Wittich, 16 Fla. 323, text 326.
The writ of error herein is in due form as a writ of this court except that it is tested in the name of a former Chief Justice of this court. Defendant in error has not moved to dismiss the writ of error because of the formal defect; nor has the plaintiff in error asked leave to amend. The cause has been submitted upon briefs. Under these circumstances the formal defect in the writ of error not affecting the jurisdiction of the court and being amendable will be regarded as having been amended in appropriate proceedings, when the writ is not issued in violation of the statutes.
An action was brought by the widow upon a policy of life insurance, the declaration alleging that the policy was payable to the insured husband and thereafter with the consent of the insurer was made payable to the plaintiff, wife of the insured.
The pleas averred that in his life time the insured offered to surrender the policy for its cash surrender value and defendant accepted said offer and canceled the policy whereby defendant became and is indebted for only the cash surrender value. The pleas do not aver the consent or acquiescence of the beneficiar y (the plaintiff) in the asserted surrender and cancellation of the policy and admit that the cash surrender value of the policy was not paid. The pleas therefore were subject to the demurrer interposed, and the judgment rendered for the plaintiff upon demurrer sustained to the pleas, being proper, is affirmed.
Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Brown,. C. J., and Elias and Strum, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Palmer v. Johnson, 97 Fla. 479 (Fla. 1929)…missed sua sponte. But in Williams v. Pitt, 38 Fla. 162, 20 So. R. 936, the writ was tested in the name of the former Chief Justice, who was then a member of the court, and the error was held to be amendable. And in Mutual Life Ins. Co., v. Hartley, 92 Fla. 237, 109 So. R. 421, the writ of error was tested in the name of a former Chief Justice who was not a member of the court when the writ was issued. In a well considered opinion, this court, speaking through Mr. Justice Whitfield, held that this was a fo…
-
Provident Sav. Bank & Tr. Co. v. Devito, 98 Fla. 1076 (Fla. 1929)…ssed by the Court sua sponte. Griffith v. Henderson, 52 Fla. 507, 42 So. R. 705; Anderson v. State, 73 Fla. 86, 74 So. R. 6"; Adams v. State, 94 Fla. 1156, 115 So. R. 530; Law v. Zimmerman, 87 Fla. 421, 100 So. R. 528; Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Hartley, 92 Fla. 237, 109 So. R. 421. The provisions of Chapter 11890, Acts 1927, Sections 4635-6, Comp. Gen. Laws 1927, legally cannot and properly interpreted do not dispense with prescribed requirements that are essential to due process of law or to the jurisdiction…
-
Brooks v. Miami Bank & Tr. Co., 115 Fla. 141 (Fla. 1934)…ore it can review a 'cause on appeal; and an entry of appeal which is made returnable to a day not authorized by the statute; does not bring the cause or the appellees' within the jurisdiction of the appellate court. Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Hartley, 92 Fla. 237, 109 So. 421; Provident Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Devito, 98 Fla. 1076, 125 So. 235. An appearance by the parties does not give the appellate court jurisdiction of a cause when the entry of appeal is made returnable to a day that is not authorized…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Loring v. Wittich, 16 Fla. 323 (Fla. 1878)
- Bondurant v. Watson, 103 U.S. 278 (U.S. 1880)
- Anderson v. State, 73 Fla. 86 (Fla. 1917)
- Williams v. Pitt, 38 Fla. 162 (Fla. 1896)
- Driggs v. Higgins, 19 Fla. 103 (Fla. 1882)
- Savannah v. Justice, 41 Fla. 508 (Fla. 1899)
- Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Kirk, 111 U.S. 486 (U.S. 1884)
- West v. Johnson, 66 Fla. 4 (Fla. 1913)
- Rye v. Haddie V. Banks, 66 Fla. 434 (Fla. 1913)