Court Opinion

ID: 9718557
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:27:06.117194+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:00.359088
License: Public Domain

Clinton, J.,
concurring in the result.
I concur in the result although I do not agree with the rationale of the opinion. I believe that section 44-371, R. R. S. 1943, is a true exemption statute and not merely a statute of frauds. It is my opinion that section 44-371, R. R. S. 1943, is not applicable for the reason the record establishes that the real contest in this case is between two different sets of creditors of the beneficiary of the policy, i. e., the plaintiff, who, for value given, took an oral assignment and physi*255cal delivery of the policy, and between creditors of the beneficiary’s estate to whom there may be some liability on account of a subsequent tort of the beneficiary occurring after the assignment to the plaintiff. In these circumstances I believe that, as between the two sets of creditors, the oral assignment is valid and section 44-371, R. R. S. 1943, has no applicability. If the ultimate beneficiaries of the estate were the decedent’s heirs or legatees, I would hold that the statute is applicable.
Spencer, J., joins in this concurrence.