Court Opinion

ID: 9627216
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:39:12.818418+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:42.991524
License: Public Domain

THE HONORABLE LE ROY L. McKINNON, District Judge,
sitting in place of MR. JUSTICE BOTTOMLY, dissenting:
In this action the respondents, plaintiffs below, filed a complaint in claim and delivery for that certain certificate issued by the Prudential Insurance Company of America, on a policy of group insurance on the life of one Luis Kruzich. The complaint alleges: That the plaintiffs are now and at all times pertinent to this action, were, entitled to possession of the said certificate; that the beneficiary named in said certificate was the defendant; that the beneficiary of the proceeds of the said policy of insurance was changed shortly before the death of the insured, from the defendant to the plaintiffs; the prayer is for possession of the certificate or damages in the amount of the face value of the policy of insurance. The defendant filed general and special demurrers which.were overruled. Plaintiff’s demurrers to the answer and cross-complaint were sustained, and an amended answer and cross-complaint were filed. The answer consisted of a general denial; the cross-complaint alleged an absolute assignment of the beneficial interest in the policy to the defendant by the insured during his life, and a conspiracy on the part of the plaintiffs to cause a change of beneficiary of the said policy. The matter was tried to a jury, and when all testimony was in the plaintiffs moved for a non-suit of defendant upon the amended cross-complaint. ,
*299The following-.-statement by the court appears at-page' 255 of the-transcript on appeal: •
“The Court: It is the Court’s view is that it is willing to go along with you — that there is proof of a verbal contract to pay these things; but the Court still feels that that’s nothing for the jury to decide; that the jury isn’t there to decide whether they are going to be'paid off according to the written contract or according to the verbal contract. It’s just not a jury question in accordance with the prayer, there is a prayer that a lien be impressed — this-jury can’t impress any liens. If the Court.was confronted with a situation where counsel on both sides were moving for a directed verdict, the Court would dismiss the jury and then feel that it had within its power such a thing as the impression of a lien, but to turn this over to a jury to decide which contract shall prevail here is unthinkable to the court.” After, arguments, the motion for nonsuit of the cross-complaint was granted.
In an article on replevin and its modern statutory substitute, claim and delivery, in 46 Am. Jur., Replevin, sec. 4, p. 8, it is stated:
“It cannot be brought for the purpose of trying the right of property.”
In the same article, 46 Am. Jur., Replevin, sec. 22, p. 15, is the following:
“Replevin, or equitable replevin,, may be maintained for a certificate of stock, where the object is to regain possession of the specific paper, and not-to test the right to the property which it represents.”
The insurance certificate involved in this action is analogous in many respects to a stock certificate. There is no serious attempt in this case to allege or prove a right to possession of the specific paper which is the certificate. It is in evidence that various certificates have issued from time to time, but no explanation is offered as to why a- new certificate •was not issued, if in fact a' change of beneficiary was effected. The whole intent *300of the pleadings and proofs is to establish a property right in the proceeds of the policy of insurance. I believe the plaintiffs have misconstrued their cause of action. In a proper action the necessary parties would be before the court and amenable to any judgment rendered; whether or not any sum is due and payable on the policy could be determined, as well as the proper beneficiary entitled to receive such sum, and a final determination of the entire matter would result. In my opinion, the complaint fails to state a cause of action and the general demurrer of the defendant should have been sustained.
Further, assuming the matter could be tried on the present pleadings, it is my opinion that prejudicial error was committed by the trial court in sustaining the motion for nonsuit of the amended cross-complaint. There were proofs offered which, if believed by the jury, would sustain a finding of a good and sufficient assignment of the proceeds of the policy. Comments of the court, quoted above, indicate that the court believes there was sufficient proof submitted, but the question was taken from the jury, and they were asked to find a general verdict without considering whether or not an assignment had been .made. For the reasons stated, it is my opinion the case should be reversed and remanded with directions to sustain the defendant’s demurrer to the complaint, and dismiss the complaint.