Case Name: Mary Baker, Appellant, v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, Impleaded with Charles Baker and Others, Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1906-03-09
Citations: 111 A.D. 500
Docket Number: 
Parties: Mary Baker, Appellant, v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, Impleaded with Charles Baker and Others, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 111
Pages: 500–503

Head Matter:
Mary Baker, Appellant, v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, Impleaded with Charles Baker and Others, Respondents.
First Department,
March 9, 1906.
Life insurance — evidence insufficient, to show gift of policy to wife.
The plaintiff, the second wife of the insured,, claimed that a policy of insurance on her husband’s life had been given to her in consideration of her .promise to marry him. The policy named the former wife of the insured as beneficiary and no change of beneficiaries was shown to- have been made. The only 'evidence that the policy was ever given to the plaintiff was the testimony - of a- witness" that in 19(fl the insured said that, if the plaintiff were to marry him, he had nothing else -to offer her but his insurance, and that Ms. only desire was that none of his children should get it. The - plaintiff did not marry the insured until 1904. There was no -proof of the delivery of the-policy. ,
Held, that there was a total failure to establish a gift of the policy to the' plaintiff, and that, she was entitled, to the proceeds thereof only as administratrix of the insured. *
O’Brien, P. J., dissented, with opinion.
Appeal by the plaintiff,- Mary Baker, from a judgment of the Supreme Cotirt in favor of fhe defendants Charles Baker and others, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Hew York on the 9th day of .June, -1905, upon the decision of the court rendered after a trial at the Hew York Special Term.'
John McG. Goodale, for the appellant.
Leonard J. Langbein, for the respondents.

Opinion:
Patterson, J.:
The plaintiff, claiming to be the owner thereof, sued upon a policy Or certificate of life insurance issued by -the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company of the city of Hew York." That policy was issued in 1884 to Adam Baker, and it recited that it wás so issued in consideration of representations and agreements in a printed and written application for the policy and in consideration of a premium to be paid at certain .times.' In the application Adam Baker stated that he was- a married man, and that the person to whom the benefit was to be paid Was his wife. At that time he was married to Bose Baker, who died, on or about the 12th of February, 1886. He married the plaintiff in August, 1964. It does not appear that the beneficiary named in the policy was ever changed. The plaintiff sued the insurance company, which admitted its liability and set up that other persons made claim to'the amount of' the policy, such other persons being the individual defendants in this action; that the plaintiff had been appointed administratrix of the goods, etc., of her deceased husband, and the matter in contest, as it eventually shaped itself ón the trial, involved only the inquiry whether the plainfiff was entitled to .the amount of the policy individually,' or should receive it as administratrix. The court below adjudged that she was entitled to the money only in the latter capacity. •
The judgment should be affirmed. It is claimed by the plaintiff that the policy was given to her by Adam Baker in consideration of her promise to.marry him. The proof, on that subject is insufficient to substantiate that claim. The only evidence in that regard ' was in the testimony of the witness Mary Sullivan,-who states that Baker said in her hearing that.if the plaintiff would marry him he had nothing else to offer b,ut his insurance, and his only desire was that none of his children should get it. On her cross-examination, however, it appears that that statement was made in February, 1901, and the plaintiff was not married" to Baker until 1904. There is not a syllable of proof to show that the policy ever was delivered to the plaintiff as a gift. She had been married to Baker only four months when he died. She says she paid the premiums quarterly, fifty cents a week. Proof of delivery is entirely wanting, and the judgment of the court below, as the case was tried, that she was entitled, to the amount- répresented by the policy only as administratrix, was clearly justified.
The judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.
McLaughlin, Laughlin and Houghton, J J., concurred; O'Bbien, •P. J., dissented.