74 Md. 350 | Md. | 1891
delivered the opiuio.n of the Court.
. A special case was stated in the Circuit Court, No. 2, of Baltimore City. The facts, so far as they are material to the present purpose, are as follows: .James W. Hewlett insured his life for the sum of twenty-seven hundred and four dollars, payable at his death to J. W. Guest, as trustee for Mary A. Hewlett, Sarah E. Hewlett and Alice Hewlett, daughters of the insured. James W. Hewlett died in 1889, and the amount of the insurance money was duly paid to Guest, the trustee. The question presented by the special case relates only to the one-third of this sum apportioned to Mary A. Hewlett. She was admitted into a hospital known as “The Home for Incurables,” on the twenty-third day of July, 1887, as an inmate for life, and she was there maintained and supported until her death, which occurred on the second day of December, 1887. The hospital belongs to a corporation by the name of “The Home for Incurables of Baltimore City,” which is chartered for the care and treatment of patients whose diseases are regarded as beyond cure, and for none others'. The objects of the corporation are purely benevolent and disinterested.
“And I do also hereby promise and agree to comply with the rules of the institution as far as it may be in my power.
“Witness my hand this 23rd day of July, A. D., 1881.
Mary A. Hewlett."
• By the terms of the policy of insurance on her father’s life, Miss Hewlett was entitled to one-third of the amount insured, payable at her father’s death. This was a chose in action for the payment of money, and could be transferred by assignment in writing by virtue of the Act of 1829, chapter 51. Rittler vs. Smith, Adm’x, 70 Md., 265. It was a right to money payable on the happening of a future event which was absolutely sure to occur; although the time of the occurrence was uncertain. The assignment was made for a valuable consideration of a highly meritorious character. And its terms are of the most comprehensive description; they include all moneys, rights, credits, goods, chattels, and effects which then belonged to the assignor, or to which she was in any way entitled. The chose in action belonged at that time to Miss Hewlett; although it was not capable of being reduced to possession until a future period. It is true that it might be defeated by a forfeiture of the policy; but this circumstance in no way changed its character, or affected its assignability. The assignee took it in the same plight and condition as the assignor held it, and subject to such contingencies as might arise in the future. There was a clause in the policy of insurance to the effect that no assignment of it should be valid, unless made in writing, and endorsed thereon. Guest was the holder of the policy, as trustee; if he had assigned it and the assignee had brought suit against the insurance company, the question of the validity of the assignment would have arisen. But the insurance company has voluntarily paid the money to the trustee. It must certainly be in his hands for the use of such person as can make lawful claim to it through and
We think that the decree of the Circuit Court ought to he affirmed. <■
Decree affirmed, with costs.