Case ID: ohio-st_41/html/0232-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Eckel v. Renner.
    Error to the District Court of Hamilton County.
    
      Goss & Cohen and Wm. S. Little, for plaintiff in error,
    cited Ruse v. Ins. Co., 23 N. Y., 516, 526; Baker v. Ins. Co., 43 Id., 283; Ins. Co. v. France, 94 U. S., 564; Rombach v. Ins. Co., 16 Reporter, No. 25, p. 780; Warnock v. Davis, (U. S. Sup. Ct.) Coast Review of June, 1882, p. 377; Basye v. Adams, 16 Reporter, 489; May on Insurance, § 398; Guardian Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Hogan, 80 Ill., 35; State of Kansas v. Winner, 17 Kansas, 298; Stevens, Adm’r., v. Warren, Adm’r., 101 Mass., 564; Missouri Valley Life Ins. Co. v. Sturges, 18 Kan., 93; Cammack v. Lewis, 15 Wall., 643; Franklin Life Ins. Co. v. Hazzard, 41 Ind., 116; Terry v. Life Ins. Co., 1 Dill., 403; Swick v. Home Ins. Co., 2 Id., 160; 4 Otto, 457.
    
      I J. Miller, for defendant in error,
    cited in addition to the authorities cited in the opinion of the court, Godsal v. Webb, 2 Keene, ch. 99; Bliss on Life Ins., 40; Reynolds on Life Ins., 151 to 154; Kent’s Com., 369 n.; Schoeffer v. Ins. Co., 94 U. S., 457.
   By the court.

B. effected a valid insurance upon his own life for $1000 for his own benefit, and kept it alive by due payment of premiums. Having neither wife, nor child, and becoming fond of the daughter of a friend (at the time less than nine years old), he assigned the policy to her and delivered it to her father for her. B. died, and under an agreement, to which the insurance company, the child’s guardian and B.’s administrator were, parties, the company paid the money to the administrator. The guardian consented to this without prejudice to his claim, and afterwards recovered a judgment against the administrator for the amount in his hands.

Meld: One who has obtained a valid insurance upon his own life, may dispose of it as he sees fit in the absence of prohibitory legislation, or contract stipulation. It is immaterial, in such case, that the assignee has no insurable interest in the life. See Clarke’s Adm’r. v. Allen, 11 Rhode Island, 439; Valton v. The Life Insurance Co., 20 N. Y., 32; St. John v. Life Ins. Co., 13 Id., 31; Ashley v. Ashley, 3 Simon’s Ch. Rep., 149.

Judgment affirmed.