TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re the Estate of Howley

In the Matter of the Estate of William H. Howley

In re the Estate of Howley, 133 Misc. 34 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1928)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Surrogate's Court · State Specialty Courts
Decided
October 18, 1928
Judges
Slater
Citations
133 Misc. 34231 N.Y.S. 951928 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1094

Opinion of the Court — Slater

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Slater, S.

This is a discovery proceeding with regard to an industrial insurance policy in the John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company upon the life of the decedent.

The cases submitted holding that a discovery proceeding cannot be used as a collection agency, are not in point. A debtor and creditor relationship does not exist. The court has jurisdiction over the subject-matter, and the right to discover whether the insurance company has funds belonging to the estate, and to compel payment to the representative of the estate. (Matter of Peno, 128 Mise. 718; Matter of Akin, 129 id. 840; Matter of Johnson, 124 id. 498, 503; Matter of Booth, 215 App. Div. 516 .)

The insurance policy is industrial in form upon the life of the decedent, payable to Maria Howley, the mother. Maria Howley predeceased the decedent. The policy contains the statement that change of beneficiary must be made upon the company’s prescribed form and to take effect only when indorsed upon the policy. No change of beneficiary was made after the death of the mother, and, consequently, it is subject to the “ facility of payment clause ” which the policy contains, leaving it to the company “ to make payment to the executor, or administrator of said insured, or to any relative by blood, or connection by marriage, or to any other person appearing to the company to be equitably entitled to the same by reason of having incurred expense in any way on behalf of the insured for burial, or for any other purpose.”

The administratrix of the decedent claims the money and the decedent’s sister who has paid premiums to the extent of some eighty dollars, claims the money. The insurance company, instead of taking the position of leaving it to the court to determine, takes the very peculiar attitude of appearing and seeking to have the proceedings dismissed. Such procedure only leads to litigation and expense, and without result.

What is the legal effect of the “ facility of payment clause ” in the instant case? Is it something that the insurance company may comply with, but cannot be compelled to do?

The insurance company has failed, or refused to exercise the right with regard to the payment of the fund. Consequently, the fund is left in a position so that the administratrix of the insured is entitled to it. (Wokal v. Belsky, 53 App. Div. 167 ; Matter of Degenhardt, 123 Misc. 762 ; Nolan v. Prudential Insurance Co., 139 App. Div. 166 ; White v. Kolec, 202 id. 825; Tarasowski v. Prudential Ins. Co., 113 Misc. 248 .)

Submit decree directing the insurance company to make payment of the amount due upon the policy to the administratrix.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1932: 11941: 11955: 11956: 21957: 11963: 119322026peak 1956 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Nixon v. Life Insurance Company of Virginia124 A.2d 305 (D.C. 1956)
  2. In re the Estate of Swimley37 Misc. 2d 486 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1963)
  3. In re the Public Administrator131 N.E.2d 561 (N.Y. 1955)
  4. Howell v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co. of Boston36 N.E.2d 102 (N.Y. 1941)
  5. In re the Estate of O'Neill143 Misc. 69 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1932)
  6. In re the Estate of Patenotre16 Misc. 2d 64 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1956)

Most recent

  1. In re the Estate of Swimley37 Misc. 2d 486 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1963)
  2. In re the Estate of Theirich11 Misc. 2d 39 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1957)
  3. Nixon v. Life Insurance Company of Virginia124 A.2d 305 (D.C. 1956)
  4. In re the Estate of Patenotre16 Misc. 2d 64 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1956)
  5. In re the Public Administrator131 N.E.2d 561 (N.Y. 1955)
  6. Howell v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co. of Boston36 N.E.2d 102 (N.Y. 1941)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

DepthCaseCited by
In re Merrill, 215 A.D. 516 (1926) 34
Wokal v. Belsky, 53 A.D. 167 (1900) 21
Nolan v. Prudential Ins., 139 A.D. 166 (1910) 20
Tarasowski v. Prudential Ins., 113 Misc. 248 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1920) 11
In re Hills, 123 Misc. 762 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1924) 9

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list