Court Opinion

ID: 6246645
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-02-17 21:01:25.014178+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:59:18.671238
License: Public Domain

Opinion by
Mr. Justice Potter,
The plaintiff in this action holds by assignment the interest of the wife in the policy in suit, but she is not the sole beneficiary. The policy is by its terms made payable to the “ wife, or in the event of her prior death, to the children of the said insured.” The interest of the wife was wholly contingent upon her surviving her husband, and she could convey no greater interest in the policy than she herself had. The interest of the children of the insured, which was created for them by the contract when the policy was issued, vested in them at the same time that the interest of the wife became vested in her. Both interests were contingent. If the wife die before the insured, she will take nothing under the policy. If the insured should die before the wife, then the children take nothing under the policy. We see no reason to discriminate between the wife and the children. They are all payees, under the policy, and together constitute the “ assured,”
*144The contingency which will determine whether the wife, or the children as a class will take the proceeds, has not as yet happened ; all the beneficiaries are living, and nothing has occurred by which the rights of the parties are in any way changed. The provision that the policy may be converted into cash at the option of the holder does not change the relative rights of the parties. We agree entirely with the suggestion that “ holder ’’ or “holders,” as used in this connection, means those who in law are the owners of the policy, and are entitled to the rights and benefits which may accrue under it; in other words, all the beneficiaries; in the present case, not only the wife, but the children of the insured. If for any reason, prudence required the conversion of the policy into cash, a guardian would have no special difficulty in reasonably protecting the interest of his wards. Bu,t however that may be, it is manifest that the option can only be exercised by those having the full legal interest in the policy, or by their assignee. Neither the husband, nor the wife, nor both together had power to destroy the vested interest of the children in the policy.
As the plaintiff in this case holds by assignment the interest of the wife only, payment of this claim would not discharge the company from liability under the policy. The interest of the children remains outstanding, and this interest would take all the benefits under the policy, in case of the prior death of the wife, and the survival by the children of the insured. The trial court was therefore right in directing a verdict for the defendant.
The judgment of the Superior Court is reversed, and the judgment of the court of common pleas is affirmed.