TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Andrews v. Partridge

Andrews, Executrix, v. Partridge, Trustee

Andrews v. Partridge, 228 U.S. 479 (1913)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
April 28, 1913
Docket
No. 496
Judges
Day
Citations
228 U.S. 47933 S. Ct. 57057 L. Ed. 9291913 U.S. LEXIS 2389
Syllabus
Burlingham v. Grouse, tinte, p. 459, and Everett v. Judson, ante, p. 474, followed to effect that under § 70a of the Bankruptcy Act the trustee is only entitled to the cash surrender value of insurance policies on the life of the bankrupt at the time of the filing of the petition and that the bankrupt or his representative is entitled to the balance of the value thereof, and that the subsequent death of the bankrupt had no- effect on this division even though it occurred before adjudication.
Summary
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OE APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. The facts, which involve the construction of § 70a of the Bankruptcy Act and the ownership of policies of insurance on the life óf a bankrupt, are stated in the opinion.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — Day

Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion of the court.

Harvey K. Partridge, Trustee in Bankruptcy of Benajah D. Andrews, by petition filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, sought to acquire the title to the proceeds of certain insurance policies upon the life of Benajah D. Andrews, bankrupt, deceased, a claim to such proceeds having, been made by the executrix of Andrews’ estate. An order having been entered in the District Court in favor of the executrix, except as to the cash surrender value of the policies, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, upon a petition to revise, reversed the decree of . the District . Court and ordered that the proceeds pass entirely to the trustee. 191 Fed. Rep. 325. To review that decree this writ of certiorari was issued.

It appears from the finding of facts by the Circuit Court of Appeals that a petition in-involuntary bankruptcy was filed against Andrews on February 3,1910; that on April 4, 1910, he was adjudicated a bankrupt, and ,on April 28 of the- same year a trustee was elected and qualified. It further appears that Andrews- died on February 15, 1910, *481 having at that time, and at the time of the filing of the petition in'bankruptcy; two policies of insurance upon his life; one for $10,000 payable upon his death to his executors, administrators dr assigns, and the other for $5,000 payable upon his death to his estate. At the date of filing the petition in bankruptcy the $10,000 policy had a cash surrender value of $14.93 and was subject to a loan of $4,481.39; and the $5,000 policy had a cash surrender value of $100. Under a stipulation between the trustee and the executrix the net proceeds of the two policies were paid to the trustee to be held until the title thereto had been determined.

The District Court decreed that the trustee was entitled to the cash surrender value of the policies as of the date of the filing of the-petition, and that the bankrupt estate had no- interest in the balance of the proceeds of the policies! The Circuit Court of Appeals also held that the cash surrender value.of the policies must be ascertained as of the date of the filing of the petition in bankruptcy. Construing § 70a of the Bankruptcy Act, it decided, however, that the policies passed to the trustee, subject to the right of the bankrupt to pay or secure to the trustee the cash surrender value of the policies and to continue to hold and own them, but that this right was extinguished by his death before adjudication.

This case was argued and submitted at the same time as the cases of Burlingham v. Crouse, ante, p. 459, and Everett v. Judson, ante, p.

474. An application of the principles .therein laid down- requires the reversal óf the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals, and it is accordingly .

Reversed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 22 cases

View all citing references →
1913: 11914: 21915: 11916: 11917: 21923: 11926: 11927: 11928: 11929: 11930: 11931: 11933: 21937: 11939: 11954: 11970: 11987: 11988: 119132026peak 1914 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Lake v. New York Life Ins.122 F. Supp. 348 (D. Maryland 1954)
  2. In re Beachley19 F. Supp. 104 (D. Maryland 1937)
  3. Fisher v. Outlet Co. (In re Denby Stores, Inc.)86 B.R. 768 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1988)
  4. Mutual Trust Life Insurance Company v. Wemyss309 F. Supp. 1221 (D. Me. 1970)
  5. Lincoln Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Scales62 F.2d 582 (5th Cir. 1933)
  6. Eisenberg v. Bank of New York (In re Sattler's, Inc.)73 B.R. 780 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1987)

Most recent

  1. Fisher v. Outlet Co. (In re Denby Stores, Inc.)86 B.R. 768 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1988)
  2. Eisenberg v. Bank of New York (In re Sattler's, Inc.)73 B.R. 780 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1987)
  3. Mutual Trust Life Insurance Company v. Wemyss309 F. Supp. 1221 (D. Me. 1970)
  4. Lake v. New York Life Ins.122 F. Supp. 348 (D. Maryland 1954)
  5. Robinson v. EXCHANGE NAT. BANK OF TULSA, OKL.28 F. Supp. 244 (N.D. Okla. 1939)
  6. In re Beachley19 F. Supp. 104 (D. Maryland 1937)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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