{ "id": 11253774, "name": "JOHN W. BROWN et als. v. \u00c6TNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY", "name_abbreviation": "Brown v. \u00c6tna Life Inurance", "decision_date": "1917-10-17", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "336", "last_page": "338", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "174 N.C. 336" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "77 Va., 163", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Va.", "case_ids": [ 4388697 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/va/77/0163-01" ] }, { "cite": "62 N. C., 83", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2091729 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/62/0083-01" ] }, { "cite": "75 N. C., 176", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8689136 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/75/0176-01" ] }, { "cite": "68 N. H., 298", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.H.", "case_ids": [ 4495930 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nh/68/0298-01" ] }, { "cite": "13 S. E., 312", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "78 N. Y., 275", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "case_ids": [ 544383 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ny/78/0275-01" ] }, { "cite": "79 Pa. St., 432", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa.", "case_ids": [ 438402 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/pa/79/0432-01" ] }, { "cite": "187 Mass., 141", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 833896 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mass/187/0141-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 347, "char_count": 5496, "ocr_confidence": 0.471, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.23894925920391497 }, "sha256": "a9ca4c9b1427a8cecc8cf4d4d8f9bcf65f2d83a91e1c79e6511ce8e29ce40ae7", "simhash": "1:900f8b1934cf64d2", "word_count": 969 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:13:24.898604+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "JOHN W. BROWN et als. v. \u00c6TNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Brown, J.\nThe defendant insurance company -issued a policy upon the life of William T. Johnson, -now deceased, which was assigned by insured in these words:\n\u201cFor value received, I hereby transfer, assign, and turn over unto the children of William T. Johnson and Bettie Hall Johnson all my right, title, and interest in policy No. 269047, issued by the iEtna Life Insurance Company of Hartford, Conn., on the life of William T. Johnson, and all benefits and advantages to be derived therefrom.\u201d\nThe deceased was married twice, Bettie Hall Johnson being his second wife, by whom he had three children, who are defendants. The plaintiffs are the three children by his first wife, who sue to recover half the proceeds of the policy, which they allege were wrongfully paid to co-defendants.\nWe are of opinion that the judge below erred in holding that plaintiffs are equally entitled with the eodefendants.\nThe words, \u201cWilliam T. and Bettie Hall Johnson,\u201d are descriptio personarum, and only the children of both, and not the children of each, answer this description. The child of William T. and Bettie H. Johnson would undoubtedly mean the child of both, and not the child of one only. The use of the plural, children, should have no effect upon the modifying language.\nIf it was the purpose of the assignor to assign the policy to his six children, why add the words, \u201cand Bettie Hall Johnson\u201d? They are clearly unnecessary, if such was his purpose. Had he not added those words, all his children would take under the assignment.\nThis is the view of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in Crapo v. Pierce, 187 Mass., 141, wherein it was held that the expression, \u201cthe children of said F. and wife,\u201d as used in a will, meant only the children of their marriage, and did not mean the children of each of them, so that the child of F. by the former marriage was excluded from the distribution.\nThe Court says: \u201cIf she had said the children of 'said Frederick,\u2019 and gone no further, those born of both marriages would have been included; but the qualifying words, 'and wife,\u2019 are used and constitute a limitation which cannot be rejected, and narrows the gift. The whole phrase, then, should be read collectively as she used it, and not distributively to mean the children of Frederick and the children of Anna. Luce v. Harris, 79 Pa. St., 432; Gelston v. Shields, 78 N. Y., 275. By this interpretation the words plainly identify 'children\u2019 to be the issue of Frederick by 'his present wife,\u2019 and do not include the appellant.\u201d To the same effect are Evans v. Opperman, 13 S. E., 312; Ins. Co. v. Clough, 68 N. H., 298; Lockwood v. Bishop, 51 How. Pr. N. Y., 221.\nThe point appears to have been heretofore decide.d by this Court in Davenport ex parte, 75 N. C., 176. In that case there was a devise as follows: \u201cI give to Ohloe B. and husband, and Catherine II. and husband, and Alfred D. and wife, . . . my tract of land, . . . etc. The said Ohloe and husband, and Catherine and husband, and Alfred and wife, to hold their part of said land during their lives, and then to their children.\u201d\netc. The said Ohloe and husband, and Catherine and husband, and gotten by Henry Harrell, the children of Ohloe Davenport begotten by David Davenport, and the children of Alfred Davenport by his wife Penelope, are entitled, and not the children of said Catherine, Ohloe, and Alfred generally.\u201d\nIf there were no children in existence who could answer the description of \u201cthe children of William T. Johnson and Bettie Hall Johnson,\u201d in the sense of being the children of their marriage, this assignment might be subject to the construction contended for by the plaintiffs. This situation arose in Cooper v. Carmon, 62 N. C., 83. The testator directed that property remaining at the death of his wife should be \u201cdivided amongst our next of kin.\u201d It appeared that there were persons who were next of kin to the husband, and there were persons who were next of kin to the wife, but there were no persons who were next of kin to both husband and wife.' It was held that the estate must be divided into two equal parts, and one part distributed among the next of kin to the husband and the other part among the next of kin to the wife. But the Court said: \u201cIf there were persons next of kin to both husband and wife, they would fit the description, our next of kin, and they would take the whole.\u201d\nThere are a few cases, such as Stigler v. Stigler, 77 Va., 163, that give color to the contention of plaintiffs. The Stigler case has been clearly distinguished by the Supreme Court of Texas in Evans v. Opperman, supra, but the great weight of authority is in line with our own Court.\nReversed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Brown, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "B. S. Royster for plaintiff.", "Tasher PoTk and Murray Allen for defendants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "JOHN W. BROWN et als. v. \u00c6TNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.\n(Filed 17 October, 1917.)\nInsurance \u2014 Policy\u2014Assignments\u2014Children of Two Marriages \u2014 Descriptio Personarum.\nWhere the insured has assigned his policy of life insurance to the children of himself and his wife by a second marriage, giving his own name- and that .of such wife, and it appears that at the time he had children by both marriages, the naming of himself and his second wife are words descriptio personarmm, and only the children of the second marriage may take under the terms of the assignment upon the maturity of the policy by the death of the insured.\nCONTROVERSY without actionj submitted to Devin, J., at June Term, 1917, of Wake.\nFrom judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appealed.\nB. S. Royster for plaintiff.\nTasher PoTk and Murray Allen for defendants." }, "file_name": "0336-01", "first_page_order": 392, "last_page_order": 394 }