New York Superior Court Reports Volume 54 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1887 Excerpt: ...with the plaintiff's consent, under his claim to them, the assignment became finally operative. The taking and giving them again, would have been a mere form. It is not Opinion of the Court, by Sedgwick, Ch. J. necessary to decide that the defendant could not, against the wish of the plaintiff, have held the policies and subjected them to the operation of the assignment. So far as that is referred to by the testimony the indications are that the plaintiff assented to the possession by the defendant under the assignment, after the death of the children. These indications are the nature of the assignment which was never revoked or recalled during the lifetime of the children; the not revoking the assignment and the moral obligation on her part growing out of the payments made by the defendants, as she had in fact requested, which would be a motive to her to assent to his holding the policies after the death of the children. The presumption of fact would be that she acted in accordance with the motive until there was evidence that she ceased to be influenced by it. In June, 1884, she first made a demand. From January, 1882, no child was living. The inference is that in the intervening time, she had assented to the claim of the defendant and that the policies were then effectually assigned. The facts that have been stated disclose that the policies were not assigned as security for an antecedent indebtedness of the husband to the defendant, but for money, that the defendant should thereafter pay on account of the husband's indebtedness. Another policy was payable to the plaintiff "for her sole use if living, in conformity with the statute, and if not living to the children of said person whose life is hereby insured, or their guardian for their use." ...