The New York herald., 1921-07-17
The Law and the Widows Insurance
1t Was Meant to Protect the Wife, but Perhaps Il
Really Benefits the Husbands Creditors

vides that she "is entitled to receive the
insurance money, free from any
claim of a creditor of her hus-
band, except that where the premium
actually paid annually out OF the hus-
bands property exceeds $500. that por-
tion of the insurance money which is
purchased by excess r- premium above
| $500 is primarily fable for the hus-
| bands debts"
| Unquestionably the design OF this leg
| islation was not to take anything from
the widow but to increase her rights
by giving her greater protection, but It's
construction by the courts has. If the
decisions are to be taken literally, given
it the diametrically opposite effect.
Speaking of this statute. the Appel
late Division of the Supreme Court OF
this department in 1902. said GO App.
Div. 1890: 'If the husband does not
leave sufficient property to pay his
debts, then the claims Of all the cred
itors are to became lien upon the in
surance purchased by annual premiums
in excess Of $500. ana until such claims
have been paid the wife has no inter-
est in such proceeds"
The Court Of Appeals (175 N. Y. 211)
part Of the opinion of the Appellate
Division holding that "the excess of
insurance, as an equitable asset of the
husband dying insolvent. Is a fund for
ali Of the creditors Of the deceased"
In subsequent Appellate Division
case (133 App. Div. ss4) it was held
that this statute applies to policies taken
out on the husbands life by the
| wife as well as to those taken out by
| the husband, and that the husband s
creditors get the insurance above what
$500 year paid for. although the pre-
| miums were paid by the husband be-
fore the attacking creditors debt was
| incurred. This case was affirmed, with
out opinion, by the Court of Appeals
t2o1 N. Y. 546).
These decisions of tho New York
courts had much to do with inducing the
United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit. at Charleston, S. C..
I249 Fed. s56), under statute like
ours except that it dealt only with an
nual premiums paid in excess of $500,
10 nOlQ IQaL al premiums pd1u Dy d
husband In excess of $500 in any one
year are recoverable, with interest, by
his creditors In case he dies insolvent,
without regard to his solvency or in
solvency at the time of their payment"
Circuit Judge Knapp in his dissent
ing opinion in that case (p. 1861 very
wisely said: II am Of opinion that the
creditors referred to in the statute :.
are creditors whose rights are adversely
affected by payments of premiums be-
cause of the Insolvency of the debtor
when such payments we're made"
I am firmly of the opinion that when
this question again comes before the
New York Court Of Appeals and is
squarely presented to that tribunal, as
now constituted, 1t will hold that no
creditor is entitled to one cent of In
surance bought and paid for while the
husband was perfectly solvent. If they
do not then the statute should imn1e-
diately be amended.
None Of this discussion applies to pol
icies payable to a mans children or
anybody else but the wife, to secure
whose comfort and welfare, as view
| 1t, this legislation was especially en-
acted. but from whom. unless the courts
come to her rescue, 1t will take what
is morally and ought legally to be hers.
HENRY WoLLMAN.