Black v. Mutual Life Ins.

This action was brought to recover upon two duplicate policies of life insurance, of which plaintiff is the assignee. The material facts necessary to a disposition of the question presented, and concerning which there is no dispute, are as follows: In 1868 ' the defendant issued to J. Winslow Jones two policies of insurance upon his life in the sum of $10,000 each. The beneficiary named in each policy was Addie E. Jones, wife of the insured, and, in case of her death, her children. Addie E. Jones died in 1879, leaving, her surviving, the insured and one son, William Northey Jones. In 1889 the defendant issued, in place of one of the policies, a paid-up policy for $5,330, payable to the same beneficiaries. Some time in February, 1898, J. Winslow Jones presented to the insurance company two affidavits, verified by himself, which stated that his safe had been broken into and papers taken therefrom, including the two policies of insurance, and that, though he had made diligent effort to recover them, he had been unable to do so, and requested that duplicates be issued. The statement contained in the-affidavits to the effect that the insurance policies were lost was untrue. They had not been lost, but had always remained in possession of W. Northey Jones, the son of the assured and ultimate beneficiary. The defendant signified its willingness to issue duplicate policies on receiving two bonds of indemnity, signed by J. Winslow Jones and W. Northey Jones, indemnifying it against any and all loss sustained by reason of issuing said duplicates, or by reason of any person claiming under the original policies, and on the 16th of April, 1898, two bonds were presented, which purported to be signed by J. Winslow Jones and W. Northey Jones. The signatures, however, of W. Northey Jones were forgeries. The defendant, in good faith, and relying upon the affidavits and the bonds of indemnity, issued the two duplicates, indorsing upon each the following statement:

“New York, April 36, 1898.

“The following is as nearly as possible a copy of a policy which appears up* on the books of the company as being still in force.

“A. Klamroth, Asst. Sec’ty.”

•A few days later,, and prior to the 30th of June, 1898, J. Winslow Jones applied to this plaintiff, through one P. W. Hall, for a loan on the policies of insurance, and in the course of the negotiations it was* suggested by the plaintiff that the beneficiaries under the policies be changed, so as to have the same payable to the insured, or his executors, administrators, or assigns, and for that purpose plaintiff prepared and forwarded to Hall certain documents for execution. On the 30th of June, 1898, the plaintiff, accompanied by J. Winslow Jones and P. W. Hall, presented to the defendant the duplicate policies, together with two documents, purporting to be signed by said J. Winslow Jones and W. Northey Jones, which were in the nature of requests that the beneficiaries in the policies be changed to J. Winslow Jones, his executors, administrators, or assigns. The requests thus made were not signed by W. Northey Jones, and, in so far as his name appeared thereon, the same were forgeries. The defendant, nevertheless, in good faith and relying upon the documents so presented, made the changes as requested and indorsed upon each policy a statement to that effect. On the 30th of July following the plaintiff, on behalf o^ one J. F. Mackley, loaned to J. Winslow Jones the sum of $7,000, having previously taken an assignment from J. Winslow Jones of said policies to said Mackley as collateral security for the payment of such loan, which assignment was, a few days later, filed with the defendant. In May, 1899, W. Northey Jones wrote the defendant, asking for the dividends on one of the policies, when he was notified by the defendant that both policies appeared upon its files to have.been assigned to one J. F. Mackley. W. Northey Jones immediately notified the defendant of his ownership of the policies and that the documents on file, purporting to be signed by him, were forgeries. In April, 1901, the plaintiff applied, on behalf of J. Winslow Jones, to the defendant for a loan on the policies, to take the place of the Mackley loan, and he was then informed by it of the claim made by W. Northey Jones. On the 10th of July, 1901, Mackley assigned his interest in the policies to this plaintiff; he having, when the loan was made, in consideration of $500, guarantied payment of the same. J. Winslow Jones died on the 1st of August, 1901. Proper proofs of his death were duly served upon the defendant by the plaintiff, and also by W. Northey Jones, and payment demanded of the policies. In January, 1902, an action was brought by W. Northey Jones against the defendant, in the superior court, Hillsboro county, state of New Hampshire, upon the original policies; he claiming as beneficiary thereunder. The action was' tried, and resulted in a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the full amount of the policies. The plaintiff in this action was notified of the commencement of the action in New Hampshire, and also the time and place of trial. Subsequently this action was brought upon the duplicates. At the trial the complaint was dismissed, and the plaintiff appeals.

But it is said the insurance company was notified by W. Northey Jones, in May, 1899, of the fact of the frauds and forgeries, and it did not notify the plaintiff until April, 1901. But there was no obligation resting upon defendant to impart this knowledge to plaintiff. Plaintiff was the one who had procured defendant to make the changes, and it had a -right, so far as he was concerned, to rely on what he did as being correct. No liability had then matured against the defendant, inasmuch as J. Winslow Jones was still alive, and therefore it was under no obligation to impart information to any one concerning the policies. It is clear that no liability was created against the defendant in favor of J. Winslow Jones, since the issuance of the duplicate policies and the change of beneficiaries were procured by his fraud and forgeries, arid the company received no consideration for assuming any new liability; and upon the facts here presented I do not see how this plaintiff stands in any better position than J. Winslow Jones would, had he brought an action to recover. Nor do I think, for reasons already suggested, that the plaintiff is in a position to invoke the doctrine of estoppel. When he presented the written requests to change the beneficiaries, he in effect represented to the defendant that the signature of W. Northey Jones was genuine. The doctrine of equitable estoppel is based upon equity and justice, and is resorted to to conclude

Finally, it is said that this case comes under the rule that, where one of two innocent parties must suffer, he must bear the loss whose action enabled the wrong to be done. This rule is invoked upon the theory that the defendant, in issuing the duplicates and changing the beneficiaries, enabled J. Winslow Jones to perpetrate a fraud upon plaintiff’s assignor. But this overlooks the fact that it was the act of J. Winslow Jones, plaintiff’s original assignor, which enabled the fraud to be perpetrated, and plaintiff, by his connection with the original transaction, is in no better position, so far as enforcing the duplicate policies is concerned, than J. Winslow Jones would be, had he brought an action; for, as we have already seen, he could not enforce the claim. The defendant has paid the original policies, and simply because it was induced by the plaintiff, representing the original assignor, to issue duplicates upon the theory that the originals had been lost, and to change the beneficiaries upon forgeries and fraudulent statements, it ought not to be compelled to again pay.

The judgment is right, and should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.