The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1895-08-20

| excepted TO, II Is and remains absO.
lute. This has been the construction
placed upon the statute in practice
ana Is III harmony with the more gen
eEaI provisions and the practice
hereunder, relating to exceptions in
al law cases. Laws of 1892, Gu. 81,
secs. 12-7S. The Receptions re-
lerred to In the statute are Perceptions
allowed' or Certified TO the Supreme
Court" If they were merely excep-
lions alleged to have been made by
! counsel, whether allowed or certified
or not by the Court, and if no absolute
| decree could be made until such
| exceptions were argued and de-
termined in the Supreme Court, it
would be in the power of the party
against whom a decree of divorce
has been made to forever prevent the
decree from becoming absolute by
merely filing alleged exceptions, per
maps wholly Uncomfortable to
truth" and never following them up,
or attempting to have them allowed
or certified, but on the contrary re-
sisting all endeavors on the part of
the opposite party to have them dis
posed OF. In this case it appears that
no exceptions have ever been allowed
or certified to the Supreme Court, and
from all the circumstances, it would
seem that the libellee had abandoned
her intention, if she ever had any, of
getting any exceptions allowed if she
couId, and having them argued and
determined in the Supreme Court.
But 1t is further argued that the di-
Yorce case was abated by the death of
Henri q. McGrew and that even if
the Hbellee had desired to take further
action on her alleged exceptions, she
could not have done so. IL seems to
US that If the libellee had not for other
reasons lost her right TO take the case
to the Supreme Court on exceptions,
she might have done so even after the
death of the libellant. Such seems to |
be the current of authority as to de- |
crees granting divorces in so far as |
property rights are involved. See
Shafer V. Shafer, 80 Mich. 1853; Dow |
Ger V. Howard, A Wis. 50; Wren V.
Moss, Ill. ~; Danforth ". Danforth, |
III Ill. 236; Thomas V. Thomas, 81 Md. |
5O4, referred to in Am. & Eng. Enc. !
773; Wilson V. Wilson, 73 Mich. 500; |
Barney V. Barney, IA Ia. 1S9; KimbaIi |
V. Kimball, A n. II. 122.
Thirdly, assuming, then, that the
parties were divorced, who is entitled |
since it Is payable to "Alphonsine :
wife of Henri @. McGrew,u
payment to her is conditioned upon
her being his wife at the time of
his death, and that since a divorce
had taken place she was not
then his wife. No such condition
can fairly be implied from the
words of the policy. The insurance is
payable to the person named "Alphon-
sine McGrew," and the only condition
annexed to the payment to her is that
she shall be living at the time of the
ieath of the insured. The words are
'if living" The words "wife of
Henri O.. McGreW' are words merely
If description, not of condition. What
provision the insured might have
made, had he contemplated the pos
utility of divorce is not for us to say
n to give effect to. The policy must
,e construed as it is. That the word
wife" as here used is merely descrip-
i've, and that the Insurable interest of
he beneficiary need not continue, or
hat there need not even be an insur-
bic interest in the first place, the in
urance having been effected by the
Insured and not by the beneficiary,
ee, Conn. &C., Co. v. Schaefer, 81 u.
!. 457; Vivar V. knights of Pythias,
2 n. ]. Eq. 455; Mckee V. The Phoe-
TX &C., Co. % Mo. 3S3; Overlook v.
'verbeck, 155 Pa. st. 3. =
But 1t is provided by statute Civ.
ode, Sec. 1881 that "when a divorce
|
,nse amounting thereto, OF the wife,
ne husband shall hold her personal
state for ever" By this statute, the
lterest of Alphonsine McGrew under
lis policy passed upon the divorce to
er husband, and the insurance is now
ayable to the administrator of his
state. The policy and her interest
nder it were personal estate, and, the
'ntract having been entered into in
lese islands, the divorce having been
-anted here, and the parties having
cen domiciled here, the beneficiary
ust be determined by the laws of
ese islands. -
The first question reserved must be Il
lswered in the negative, the other
20 questions in the affirmative, and
e case is remanded to the Circuit
ourt for such further proceedings as
ay be proper.
Carter & Kinney for plaintiff; w.
Castle for defendant
August 10, 1895.