The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-04-17
bgBTs AND Insurance. MONEY.
nplipg Of superior curt In ueilbron
Cane 70 He Anpealed.

Case 10 He Appealed.
fAs ruling Of the superior court In the
natter At the estate of George II. He'll
Iron, wherein II was held that debts Of
the deceased could not be collected out OF
Insurance money willed TO q brother Of
deceased, will be passed on by the SUI
pesms court. The case was decided by
Judge Langley March ., when the court
held that the Guarantee Loan and Trust
Company a. assignee OF William G., He'll
bron. was entitled TO a legacy OF $1,000,
the amount Of two policies In the Equita-
Ne Life Assurance Society. The decision
was made In the face of q showing by
George T. Fay and William A. Peters,
executors. that many creditors had filed
claims against the estate. and that the
amount Of the debts was such that all
the assets which had come and would
come into their hands, including the $1,000
Insurance money, would be required to
pay the debts. and II the legacieS we're
paid u would result in depriving the cred
tiors Of . portion of their debts.
The principal question presented by the
appeal y the construction OF the act Of
March y, isss, which provides that the
proceeds or ayaiis OF all life Insurance
shay be exempt from all liability for any
deof." In brief filed yesterday the ex-
ecaiors, through r. c. Strudwiek, their
Attorney. contend that the statute is pros
pecuve. and that Il ought not TO operate
sron insurance effected or debts contract
prior 10 It's passage. as is the case with
ne question on appeal. The rule OF con-
FRICTION, they say. rests upon a presump-
m mat thu legislature does not intend
elat u unjust. and does not intend ordI-
ns'iy TO take away by law rights which
vWs vested In a citizen prior to the enact
nens OF the law This rule obtains even
y The absence Of constitutional obstacles
% giving retroactive effect TO \ statute,
hct " the act we're intended By the legls-
htlFe 70 operate retroactiyely, and to ex-
1np, she proceeds OF life insurance taken
Gut by the decedent prior TO It's enactment
nom liability for debts contracted AT a
une prior, Il Is unconstitutional ana void.
eecaase II impairs the obligations OF con.
usess After discussing at length the fact
VA, the statute eSerup,s all life insur-
Aacs from liability for any debt, inclad-
ne insurance which may mature during
the lfa of the insured as Wen as that
which mstnrcs only upon his death, tho
esecetors say:
The vice inherent In exemption laws.
sna which renders them void as TO exist
ins creditors, Il the attempt thereby to
prevent the creditor from receivin. salts
faction Of his demand from the property
owned by the debtor which was liable to
me satisfaction OF such demands by tho
eW as II stood az the time the debt was
sohWscted. The same vice IL found I'm thu
iaw nov under consideration. BY its terms.
q has been said, u includes the proceeds
" ssaiis of life insurance policy which
natures during the lifetime Of the as
safse- II II Is to he sustained. we will
nave The speetscie OF debtor receiving
sostune. u may be. the proceeds or
aNaiis OF a life insurance policy which ma
'a'es IN his lifetime. This fortune 70
crstilor can touch. The debtor may roll
~ wealth, and protect himself under the
PROVISIONS OF this statute. lie may say
70 the creditor whose debt arose prior to
,h7 passage OF this act. The money which
BON enjoy Is the proceeds and avaiis Of
hie Insurance policy; therefore II is ex-
.nspl from your claim. You cannot touch
" Law which leads TO such a re.ul,
eaxh' NOT 20 be upheld. II is no answer
70 tais point that the ease al bar does
no, Present this state Of facts IL might.
mo probably Rould. arise under this Law.
!, = an undtspWied rule tn the corStrnc-
eea OF statute in order to determine its
soisssi.a Iionalsty that law is 10 hs Judged.
~ .hss respect. rot by What has been done
slioee IT, eat what may by It's authority
: done under It. In this case the policy.
Ne'n< payable 20 the executors OF the as
ss-Iea. TIE proceeds become assets In their
SANS Creditors have as rerfecl q right
!" resort 10 suca proceeds for the nay
ntvnt OF their debts as they would have
y ire policy had matured during the life
,.nie et the tehtcr, A law which prohil-
IS creditor from reserting 10 the assets
W sscedent IA the hands OF hts exes,-
assfse Tor the payment % bis debts, and
"aleh authorizes and commands thar such
assets shall - paid 70 a mere volunteer.
sch as thc petitioner In this case Is as
y - aieFous and Is as aestrsciive to tho
s'xn's OF = cresistor a. isw which pre-
NsS's the rc<oTting Of such creditor 70
,he property Of his 6sctcr In his deetcr's
hseurne Zach case Is equally within the
mischief intended TO ee prevented ~ ths
constitution of this state and that OF ths
NnlsNa 81 Al - when fhey rrnhIhtI The nAx-