Case Name: Rosa Elsom, Appellant, v. Ella Gadd, Respondent
Court: Washington Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Washington
Decision Date: 1916-12-12
Citations: 93 Wash. 603
Docket Number: No. 13256
Parties: Rosa Elsom, Appellant, v. Ella Gadd, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Washington Reports
Volume: 93
Pages: 603–614

Head Matter:
[No. 13256.
Department One.
December 12, 1916.]
Rosa Elsom, Appellant, v. Ella Gadd, Respondent.
Exemptions — Life Insurance — -Proceeds—Exemption From Debts —Statutes. Construed together as in pari materia with Rem. 1915 Code, § 569, Rem. & Bal. Code, § 6158, providing that, if a policy of insurance is effected by any person on his own life, the lawful beneficiary thereof, other than himself or his legal representatives, shall, unless contrary to the terms of the policy, be entitled to its proceéds against the creditors, was intended to modify the sweeping provisions of § 569, providing that the proceeds or avails of all life and accident insurance shall be exempt from all liability for any debt; hence, to claim the exemption, the insurance must be payable to some beneficiary “other than the assured or his legal representatives” (Fullerton, J., dissenting).
Same — Statutes — Repeal — Subject-Matter. The repealing clause of the Insurance Code, Laws 1911, p. 298, § 238, repealing all prior acts “on the subject of the organization and government of insurance companies and insurance business,” was not intended to repeal the earlier act, Rem. 1915 Code, § 569, exempting the proceeds or avails of all life and accident insurance from liability for any debt; the subject-matter of exemptions being a distinct subject-matter in and of itself not necessarily included within an act relating to insurance.
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Jurey, J., entered December 14, 1915, in favor of creditors of an estate, upon a hearing upon objections to the final account and distribution by the administrator.
Affirmed.
Tucker & Hyland, for appellant.
Charles H. Miller, for respondent
Reported in 161 Pac. 483; 162 Pac. 867.

Opinion:
Chadwick, J.
This appeal raises the question whether a life insurance policy payable to the estate of a deceased person is exempt from the payment of the debts of the estate. At the time the case was decided in the court below, the case of German-American State Bank of Ritzville v. Godman, 83 Wash. 231, 145 Pac. 221, was the final expression of this court. The trial judge, however, found that the statute under which appellant claims, Rem. 1915 Code, § 569, was an exemption statute and could not be invoked in aid of one who did not come within the usual definitions of exempt persons, following the principles set forth in 18 Cvc. at pp. 1374, 1397, and 1436.
An appeal was taken. Pending a hearing, we announced our decision in the case of In re Blattner's Estate, 89 Wash. 412, 154 Pac. 796. A rehearing was granted in the latter case. The final decision of the court, sitting En Banc, was rested upon the- doctrine of preferred claim, a majority of the judges saying:
"This view of the record renders it unnecessary to consider the question determined in our former opinion, and we leave it open to future consideration." In re Blattner's Estate, 92 Wash. 48, 158 Pac. 1015.
While the opinion of the court might be rested upon the grounds indicated by the trial judge, we shall not — because of the importance of the main issue, and the fact that it must inevitably recur unless finally determined — inquire into the soundness of the holding that the statute is not available to one who is not named as a privileged person in the general exemption laws.
We have had the benefit of two able oral arguments in the Blattner case, with exhaustive briefs, and a more exhaustive petition for a rehearing. We have also had the benefit of able argument and briefs in this case, and conclude that the decision in the Blattner case, 89 Wash. 412, 154 Pac. 796, is the true interpretation of the law and controls the case at bar.
It was explained in the Blattner case that the issue now determined was not called directly to the attention of the court in the case of Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Chehalis County Bank, 65 Wash. 374, 118 Pac. 326, and in the case of German-American State Bank of Ritzville v. Godman, supra, but counsel insist that the issue was in fact involved, and that, under those decisions, money payable to an estate is exempt from all debts of the estate. Granting, but without holding, this to be so, a majority of the judges are now content to subscribe to the first opinion in the Blattner case, and, that no confusion may follow, it will be understood that the cases last referred to, in so far as they affect the main issue, are now overruled.
Affirmed.
Morris, C. J., Mount, and Ellis, JJ., concur.