Hannigan v. Ingraham

This action was brought to determine to whom a fund, the proceeds of a policy of life insurance, should be paid. James H. Hannigan, being a resident of the city of Albany, on the 21st day of September, 1868, became a member of the Locomotive Engineers’ Mutual Life Insurance Association, and received from such association a certificate which he held at the time of his decease. And the portion of such certificate which becomes material in deciding this case upon this appeal is as follows:

“Locomotive Engineers’ Mutual Life Insurance Association, Ho. 2860.

“ Certificate of membership and policy of life insurance.

“ This certifies that James H. Hannigan was admitted a member of this association on the 21st day of September, 1868.

“ Port Jervis, H. Y., July 8, 1871.

C. H. Sherman, President.

F. Abbott, Secretary.”

Immediately below the signatures of the president and secretary of the association are engraved or printed the following words: “All payments or benefits that may accrue or become due to the heirs of the person insured by virtue of this policy will be payable to or lawful heirs.”

The last-mentioned words were not signed by the insured or any other person, and we think they were intended merely as a form to be filled up and signed by the insured, in case he desired, in that manner, to designate who he intended to be benefited by such insurance. As such blanks were not filled, and the statement was not signed by the insured in his lifetime, the same did not become operative as a designation of the persons who were to receive such fund after the death of the insured. It is very clear that James H. Hannigan intended to accomplish the same purpose by the execution of a will, in which he designated the persons who he intended should receive the said fund, and therein specified in what proportions the beneficiaries were to receive the soma The said| will, omitting the attestation clause, is as follows: “ The last wil. and testament of me, James H. Hannigan, of the city of Albany * I give and bequeath to my son, James H. Hannigan, the sum of $300. I give and bequeath to my son, William A. Hannigan, the sum of $100. I give and bequeath to my son, Francis Hannigan, the sum of $100. I give and bequeath to my son, John Hannigan, the sum of $100. I give and bequeath to. my daughter, Mary Hannigan, the sum of $100. , I give and bequeath to my sister-in-law, Sarah Farrell, the sum of $300, in payment of my indebtedness to her. The foregoing will be paid out of the proceeds of my life insurance, in and by virtue of my membership in the Locomotive Engineers’ Mutual Life Insurance Association, and by virtue of my life insurance policy in that association and my life insurance in the Exempt Firemen’s Association.

“I give, devise and bequeath all the rest, residue and remainder of my property of every kind, including my above-mentioned life insurance by virtue of my membership and policies of life insurance in the said associations, above named, to my wife, Jane TL

“ In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal the second of October, eighteen hundred and eighty-seven.

[l. s.] “James H. Hannigan.”

Thus it appears tnat he named his wife and children as the persons who were to receive the fund as the objects of his bounty, with only the addition of his sister-in-law, Sarah Farrell, to whom he bequeathed $300. The testator died on the 7th day of February, 1888, and the will was duly proved, and letters testamentary were issued to Jane T. Hannigan, the widow of the testator. It seems to us quite clear that the words “heirs” and “ lawful heirs,” employed in the form referred to, should not in this case be interpreted in the technical legal sense of heirs-at-law of the deceased, but rather as intending the widow and children of the deceased, as such rendering would seem more in harmony with the purpose of the association, as evidenced by its by-laws. Article 1 contains the following declaration: “ Its object being to aid and benefit the families of deceased members of the brotherhood in a simple and substantial mannerf and we think the same purpose can be traced through the by-laws, as indicating the class of persons intended to be benefited, and as furnishing a pretty clear intimation in regard to who were intended to be embraced within the term “heirs” or “heirs-at-law.” This case should be determined in the light of the facts and circumstances which surround it, and the terms employed should receive a reasonable interpretation with the view to give effect to the purpose of the organization, and the intention of the parties. Kaiser v. Kaiser, 13 Daly, 522 ; Day v. Case, 43 Hun, 179 ; 5 N. Y. State Rep., 397, seem to have been disposed of upon a question not involved in this case.

We conclude that by his will James H. Hannigan made a proper and sufficient designation of the persons who were to receive the fund in question by naming his wife and children, and that they are the persons who are legally entitled to such fund in the proportions named in the will. In regard to the legacy to Sarah Farrell of $300 the court has found the following: “ II. This bequest to Sarah Farrell is invalid as far as concerns the insurance moneys in question in this action, being in derogation of the object of the association expressed in its by-laws, to wit, the aiding and benefiting of families of deceased members.” The correctness of such decision, so far as it affects Sarah Farrell, was neither affirmed or combatted before us, and we decide nothing in regard thereto. We therefore conclude that the decision of the trial court was in all respects correct, and should be affirmed.

Learned, P. J., and Landon, J., concur.