Santa Fe daily New Mexican., 1897-10-22
STORY OF A LIFE POLICY.
Opinion of the territorial supreme
Court Sustaining the Validity Of
the Assignment of Life
Insurance.

In the matter of Wellington A. Givens,
appellant, vs.. j. d. W. Veeder, appellee,
an appeal from Bernalillo county, Judge
Hamilton handed down the opinion OF
the Territorial supreme court, reversing
and remanding the cause with directions
to the court below to dismiss the bill.
Chief Justice Smith and Associate Justice
Laughlin concurred and Associate Justice
Bantz dssented.
The opinion recites that Givens, as as.
signee of an insurance policy on the life
of one Fiske, filed bill against Veeder,
who held prior assignment of the same
policy, to compel the latter to pay to
com plainant debt due to him by the
deceased ont of the money collected by
Veeder upon the said policy. The cause
was referred by consent to special mas
ter, who recommended that the bill be
dismissed. The lower court set aside the
report, and rendered a decision for
Givens.
The facts as disclosed by the record are
in substance as follows: That on the 30th
day of August, 1897, Calvin Fiske had an
insurance policy upon his life for $4,000;
that on the date mentioned the said Fiske
was Justly indebted to Veeder in the sum
of $2,O11, and that on said day Fiske
made an absolute and unconditional as
signment of said policy to Veeder in
cancellation of the said debt; that at the
time of said assignment of the policy the
cash value thereof was $500; that Veeder
accepted such assignment and the as
signment of certain Office furniture in
full satisfaction of the debt due to him
by Fiske; that thereafter Veeder paid all
of the semi-annual premiums On said
| policy, amounting to 1852 per year; that
Veeder never thereafter attem pied to col
lect said debt from Fiske nor the annual
premiums so advanced; that, in spite of
the fact that he had no assisnable inter
est in said policy, about April 80, 1890,
Fiske made another assignment of the
same to Givens on account of certain
Indebtedness; that, after the death OF
Fiske, Veeder collected the $4,000 due on
the aforesaid policy; that at this time the
money was paid over by the insurance
company, some controversy arose be-
tween Veeder and Givens, and, without
waving any of his rights in the prem.
ises, the former offered to pay to the lat
ter $500; the master further found thai
Givens had no interest whatever in SAID
policy; that the proceeds thereof be.
longed to Veeder, and hence concluded
that the bill should be dismissed. As al
ready noted these findings we're set aside
Judge Hamilton foggd netting ii ii the the
record 70 warrant the setting aside of the
findings of the special master. He says
"If there was no testimony sufficient tt
sustain the report, or if the court coule
discover from an examination of th'
record that the report was for this reason
manifestly wrong under the evidence
then it would be the duty of the court tt
set it aside; but, until this was made tt
appear, the findings of fact made by th'
master will be regarded as equivalent tt
the special verdict of the jury, and can
not be disturbed. This view is in har
mony with the rule established by tn
Supreme court of the United States"
In sustaining the findings of the mas
ter, Judge Hamilton finds further from
the record that, at the time Fiske died
including the original debt and premium
paid by him, Veeder had an actual casl
interest in said policy amounting t.
$4,50O, exclusive of the cost of collecting
the same, which would have swelled th
total to about $4,000. Hence he con
cludes that the lower court erred il
granting Givens Judgment agains
Veeder for 1918 so and that such decre'
should be set aside.