OWNERSHIP OF LIFE INSURANCE

Dominion, Volume 32, Issue 260, 1 August 1939, Page 6

OWNERSHIP OF LIFE INSURANCE

Dispute After Death Of Young Man FATHER AND AUNT BOTH CLAIM By Telegraph-—Press Association. DUNEDIN, July 31. An action in which both the father and the aunt of a young man killed iu an accident last year asked for a declaration of ownership of a life insurance policy, valued at about £320, which 'deceased had carried came before Mr. Justice Smith iu the Supreme Court this morning. Tlie young man left no will and the fatlter, Lindis Robertson, Pembroke, claimed the policy and the money payable on it as administrator of his estate and sole next-of-kin. The aunt, Mrs. Christina Jane John, Hawea Flat, in whose possession the policy now is, disputed this claim, saying that the young man gave it to her as a gift during his lifetime. The law was clear, his Honour said, in giving judgment. The whole dispute depended upon the facts. It was an unfortunate case. Plaintiff was father of the deceased youth, and defendant was really his foster mother. Defendant had brought him up, and, according to the evidence, he had intended to show his appreciation by giving her this policy iu the event of his death. The father appeared to have contributed very little, but, as administrator of the estate, he had claimed the policy. His Honour reviewed the law concerning the ease, and remarked that, since the claim was in respect of a deceased estate, he was bound to be very well satisfied that defendant had established her case. His interpretation of the words used by deceased when giving the policy to Mrs. 'John, and his subsequent actions, was that tho property should remain his, but in her possession till his death. Nothing could be plainer that that it was his intention that the money should go to her in the event of his death, but it was clear that it could not be said that the policy was given as an outright gift, unconditionally upon death. , •‘Those are the facts and the law is clear,” his Honour continued. “Though it may seem a hardship in this case that the money should not be paid to defendant, the Court, must apply the rules laid down by the law for the protection of estates from certain claims which may open the way to fraudulent operations. In this ease deceased’s gift to defendant must be declared an imperfect gift and the law is clear that such a gift cannot be enforced. Judgment is, therefore, given for plaintiff.”