| Wis. | May 23, 1916
Under the provisions of sec. 2347, Stats. 1915, and the construction given it on the rehearing in Nat. L. Ins. Co. v. Brautigam, ante, p. 270, 157 N.W. 782" court="Wis." date_filed="1916-04-21" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/state-ex-rel-board-of-regents-of-normal-schools-v-donald-8192041?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="8192041">157 N. W. 782, when the insured made his wife the beneficiary she took a vested interest in the policy, subject to be divested in the manner reserved in .the policy contract and not otherwise. The only method
But since the statute divested the insured of all rights in the policy except those specifically reserved, he was limited to the terms of such reservation in making an effectual disposition of it. Not having exercised the power reserved, he could not dispose of the policy in any other manner. In the Brautigam Case the change of beneficiary was made pursuant to the reservation and was therefore sustained as a valid exercise of the power reserved.
Since the wife took a vested interest in the policy at the time she was made a beneficiary, which interest could be divested only in the manner reserved in the policy contract, it becomes unnecessary to determine whether or not she sustained the status of wife for one year after the decree of divorce was granted. Conceding that she did not sustain such status, the policy would still belong to her because her interest therein had not been effectually divested.
By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.