Case ID: mass_165/html/0517-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Allen, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Henry W. Moore vs. Massachusetts Benefit Association.
    Suffolk.
    March 13, 1896.
    — April 1, 1896.
    Present: Field, C. J., Allen, Holmes, & Knowlton, JJ.
    
      Life Insurance — Release of Claim—Avoidance of Release—Action — Rescission of Settlement — Tender.
    
    If a person named as beneficiary in a policy of life insurance receives a sum of money and signs a release with the understanding that his claim is settled so that he is thereafter to receive nothing, he cannot rescind the settlement and maintain an action on his claim without first returning the money received by him.
    Contract, to recover 11,200 and interest, the balance alleged to be due on a policy of insurance for $2,000, issued by the defendant on October 14, 1885, on the life of Martha M. Moore, to the plaintiff, who was her husband. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Blodgett, J., it appeared that the plaintiff had received from the defendant $800, in full settlement of the claim; that the defendant held a release of all demands under seal executed by the plaintiff, and that before the bringing of the action the plaintiff did not tender the amount received by him to the defendant. At the request of the defendant, the judge directed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant; and the plaintiff alleged exceptions.
    
      S. L. Whipple, for the plaintiff.
    
      A. E. Avery, for the defendant, was not called upon.
   Allen, J.

The plaintiff’s own testimony shows that he received the money and signed the release with the clear understanding that his claim was thereby satisfied and settled, so that he was thereafter to receive nothing further. There was no room for the suggestion that he was still to have a right of action left, and that the money was to apply only to a part of his claim. Under these circumstances he could not rescind the settlement and maintain an action on his claim without first returning the money which he received. Drohan v. Lake Shore Michigan Southern Railway, 162 Mass. 435, and cases there cited. Exceptions overruled.