Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1883-12-27

Gated case involving the Right of Sue
cession.
Special Telegram to the Globe
CHICAGO, Dec. 26.-Judge Blodgett de-
livered an opinion this morning in the
case of the Union Mutual Life association
of Maine vs.. Eliza NJ. Stevens, ct 81. The
bill in this case stated that Samuel B.
Stevens in 1853 effected an insur-
ance on his life with the
Union Mutual Life association, Of Maine,
in the sum of 81 200 for tho benefit OF his
wife Mary F. Stevlns and heir that on June
15, 1870, that policy w.e rurrsndered and
Samuel B. Stevens tosk out @ new yeliey
for the same sum and at the same rate of
premium payable, in case Of his death 10
his heirs, executors and assigness; that in
June, 1856, Mary F. Stevens, mentioned
in the said policy, died, and at some sub
sequent date prior to Oot., 1869, Samuel
Stevens married Eliza M. Stevens. Mary
F. Stevens left an only child, daughter
Mary Taylor, one of the defendants to the
bill which was entered for the purpose of
determining which OF these parties is en-
titled to receive payment OF the amount of
the policy which has been paid into the
court. Judge Blodgett, in deciding the
case, stated that the defendant, Mary
Taylor, contended that the policy wss but
a continuation of the first policy. From
the material facts it appeared that Samuel
B. Stevens took out the first policy
and paid the premiums regularly
until June, 1869. In October, 1869. be
married Eliza W. Stevens and thsn
requested the com pany to change the pol
icy 50 as to give him the right to leave the
amount to his heirs, as the circumstances
Of his family had entirely changed. The
company could not consent to any such al
tsration, but suggested he should allow
the policy to lapse and take out a new one
for the sole use of himself. It further ap-
psarsd that Mrs. Mary Taylor was tho
sole heir at law of Mary F. Stsvsns, who
was killed in railway accident in the
state of New York, and tina:
as guardian of Mary Taylor,
the only heir of her mother, he recovered
$4,000 from the railway company, but had
nsver paid the money over. In his will he
provided that the sum of $4,000 should
be paid to his daughter Mary Taylor as
soon as convenient in settlement of his
claim, which should be lien upon his
property. The first question to be decid
enter bill in equity on the part of Eliza
W. Stevens, it was showed that till in
equity was not sustainabls. Mary Taylor
insisted that the second policy was a con-
tinuation of the old one; that the change in
form did not and could not defeat her
rights as the heir of her mother. Samuel
B. Stevens had tbs right to make the change
in the policy. He agreed that there seemed
to be great conflict Of authority az to the
power of person whose life is insured to
change the policy, but when the cases were
examined that conflict was more apparent
than real, and depended Oh the different
circumstances of the respective cases dis
closed. It could hardly be con-
tended that in the death of
Mary B. Stevens. her daughter had
any right to the proceeds of the policy.
The word heirs in the policy might neon
the heirs of Samuel B. Stevens. He could
not be compelled to continue to pay the
premiums on the original policy. 1t
seemed to the court that he had right to
make the change in the original policy.
At the time it was made there was an in
complete gift to his wife, and he was in q
position where he could change his mind
as much as he was at liberty at any time
to change his will. In his will be
directs that payment of the $4,000
to her so that the policy became an asset
of his sstate. The decree would therefore
direct the payment of the monay to Eliza
II. Stevens ss e1ecutrix of Samuel 3.
Stevens, aud thst each party to this suit
should pay their own costs.