Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1882-11-14
From the New York Times.

From the New York Times.
A case has recently come up for settlement
before the courts of Illinois which indicate the
necessity that exists for carefully guarding the
wording Of life insurance policy. twenty-five
years ago man named Louis CLAM took out
policy of Insurance upon his life for 80 0O0 made
payable to his only daughter, then six years Old
Not only was the policy made payable to her or
to her executors. administrators and assigns
but it also recited that such payment was to be
made in consequence of an annual premium
paid by the daughter. In other words, the
policy on its face appeared to be taken
out by the daughter, though the risk
covered was the life of the father. In June
1879, the daughter married. and two months
later she died without children. Although the
court records DO not exhibit that fact it is prob
able that the marriage made against the
wishes of the father. after her deCease letters
of administration were issued by the probate
court 10 her husband whO having heard of the
policy. applied for il as administrator on the
ground that it was part of his deceased wife's
personal estate. which, under the law. reverted
TO him. As more than -. 800 had been paid by
CLAM in annual premiuns-for he had gone on
making these payments precisely As he would
have done had they been called for in his own
name-the policy had considerable present
value. Ii would be an object for his SON.
in-law TO make the subsequent payments
for the purpose of collecting the face
value OF the policy when it matured
Or make a present compromise with the
Company. But CLAM did not care TO have the
mOneyswhich To all intents and purposes he had
saved up year after year. pass into the hands of
his daughters husband. At all events he re-
fused 10 give up the policy. The case was
carried 10 the probate court, from there to the
circuit court OF Cook county. and thence by an
other appeal to the appellate court of the first
district of Illinois. and in each instance the de-
cisiOn was unfayOTabe to CLAM. 1t is now
however. to 90 to the supreme court of the
state. which is quite likely to concur i'm the
judgments Of the lower courts The point of the
whole matter is that CLAM, althOug IA he has pad
the money and has always held possession or
the policy. tsby its terms in no way party to the
Contract, which is between his daughter or her
estate and the insurance company. At the outset
IL would have been just as easy TO have had the
form read differently for it is usually the case
that the assured himself is responsible for the
payments Of premiums. Whether even in that
event the beneficiary. direct or derIvatiye could
without his OF her consent be deprived Of the
final benefit of policy is not as well settled as
1t might be The assured could. however cease
payments, and break the contract or arrange
for an Immediate settlement with the insurinp
company. In this connection Ii NAV be said that
IL Is not always well for man to take out a life
Insurance policy payable to his wife in name
with no provision for the disposition of the
money In the event of her DEATH Such a thing has
happened as man marrying a second time. and
IL is not always possible to arrange for the pay
ment to new person. Ii is, however. ALWAYS
safe, III such a contract for a man to have his
own estate the alternative beneficiary.