316 Mass. 692 | Mass. | 1944
This is a report by a judge of a Probate Court of his action in sustaining demurrers to the petition of W, Alden Parry, and in entering a decree dismissing the petition as to the respondent insurance company. See G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 215, § 13.
Material allegations of the petition may be summed up as follows: On January 23, 1934, the respondent Robert A. Parry and another, who has since resigned, were appointed guardians of the petitioner as an insane person. On or about November 22, 1933, the petitioner had purchased from the respondent The Travelers Insurance Company a written annuity contract, paying therefor $25,000. The beneficiaries designated in the contract, other than the petitioner as annuitant, were Robert E. Parry, John E. Parry, Susan E. Parry and Margaret P. Chapman, cousins, “in equal shares and to the- survivors or survivor of them.” (These persons were made parties respondent by amendment allowed by the judge.) Shortly after the appointment of the guardians of the petitioner he was compelled to deliver to the respondent Robert A. Parry as guardian the annuity contract, and the latter has retained possession of it ever since. Under the terms and conditions of the contract, the petitioner subject to the right of an assignee has the right to execute a change of beneficiaries at any time during the continuance of the contract to take effect only when such change shall have
h-,»"-03miBBob'atÉ Gouitrhad>jiÍHÍBdrótiOn ofithe nubjte.Q.timhhtqr .of thetptetitionv! General Laws (Ter. Ed) c. 201, §45,^?-ividés, ¿so-dan ais here: material,, that- “if a,-power, is ygstedrip. ‘-an:''ineáne.:-persón-:for ¡hiscpyrn .benefit) 9! .Mg;--Go|isentbÍ8drh-buired 4oréth-é;vekercise '©fvi-añyj-¿power ¿whfreAhe^pOwqiy-of .é'oifeenttipsini^Mé nature ©f iatheneficial áot©rse¡Aeip¿tón\s§l£, his:ígfiariiiatii niay, ubyt ¡orden.».©! Ahewprbbate ¿g©,urt>¿nt^de ia£térb&oj;ÍGe?±QjjSU<di,jpBi¡sb.n^, iitiMy,¡ i.as-hhé J court Lshall ¿dpem propter,; e&eiaásértKnípo^notLgiyevtheihoiasentdmsqche^iabmtermsGshUhcbe-htitiiprizedliorf 4iie_ct@d hgft thq- older -plro$i'áÍQrií,iof5§i,4í5)w-ás'í&stjePa,cted by St. 1918, c. 68 §4,
The Probate Court had full jurisdiction under § 45 in a proper case (see Dolbeare v. Bowser, 254 Mass. 57) to authorize or direct the guardian of the petitioner to exercise the option reserved by the petitioner to change the benefi
The answer to the third ground of demurrer, to wit, that while the petitioner remains under guardianship it is not within the power of the Probate Court to declare him legally sane and mentally competent at any particular time without discharging the guardianship, is that in the consideration and disposition of the petition the judge would not be obliged to make such determination, that the provisions of § 45 to which we have referred above are operative only where the person having the right to exercise the power is under guardianship as an insane person, and that the sole question in a proceeding thereunder is whether the power shall be authorized or directed to be exercised by the guardian. It is true that one of the prayers of the petition was that the judge determine that the petitioner was mentally competent at the time of signing a request for change of beneficiaries (in 1937) and that his act in doing so was legally valid and effective. Ordinarily, however, “the allegations of fact in the stating part of the bill, and not the special prayers, determine, upon a demurrer . . . , whether ‘a case for relief is stated, for by our statute a prayer for general relief is in legal effect a part of every
-i@h©ííbipoffdeptiíguáfdianp'hó®éív-eryrhas.:árgu8di:.th:a^ thb petíti©n«eáii'notxbb begnn^akdx-ráía&ntgiÍH.edfh^' thé'JpeiátioinEm withbut’bpppoinlnienfeor-vdesignaéibh ¡bf á¿ 8i6$^<fiáeaa4íW*« Erábate íOourtf anfl-that ib iápiñ8©nrp)atible' wíthith’exe3ás$eBde QÍ6the"»gu&rdíánshá|)7tb perhatíSi© pHtitibmier/tQffíraiaíifcaÍEisfchds¡ átítiori íárga;iiiétihiá'gu^$di8iíi$.l ¡a Bating fopfthe latternphteiddofi first, weearexo'fc'opinion■ that' itáboíotxs©u¡Hd| hBo'-sastáíhQt, Wouidisibafíi4hatfh gñarddanL¡sin3plyí$tytrefiusmg.‘tosapplyí)fbj te®v6»t<4oexei^sei al pówehpf ? consentí roí dhématuge -.of¡- a'Bene-?'
•:'-'tThePe»ís'>$io ¡goofi-toasofinwhy the ¿issue preshitMafo^flie petiiibn sbohldibe/tried, iq? effect-, .cólláteraU^Ty'pi^cébffmgs 1j 2?1 y / ‘ ' ', ,2 /-2 2 ‘ g / * " rV-';" \ ' i -1,5 ^e^ i9 ‘ /b.y S • ^ 'i i - 2 2 y j} (XV i fqp,-,^scbargq-?fiqh\ guárdiani rather, than tiixectly.fini thermániier) prescri-bed.íby the *st&ffiteffoP'tffe '■fi'étérmiriát-ibnédf-1 the1- xdálVqútestib¿üinyí..yy t\i y. ? yy TO'V i ' ' 'i ».■ ‘-•■.•‘yy v.vr ■-%■/: .y"s -hI n-p.v:.'
. -v.There masr- ño ,erx,or>rin ..dismissing^ the,-.petition ¿.assio ¿the respondent insurance cofixpaitf.;•<?I"t-is'.ínbt'a'fteódssaáy;ipárty rthb fiíMj dis|)Psf|^bh ‘jdf ?t|tíe?^efaiidn «oíi^.Íy^s^c^^i|ih.e ‘remedy sought is fonan orderto -the guardian?to':exercise-:the ii|fft.a. résdt^édíínfftieV^ thW; affibit^' jíólnti^^^^'^á^^íhe ’effe.et-.whichímay;be!3lLa'de¿,finally;.jwill-.dispoSei©fí.the£ma¿ter xh''Hi,mtoii'éy 4há'k’bahhbl33pVéjüdice'Thé'4hSurkhée'iiTO .Tbat-.-fe'xdiíeípogitiQn-ftakem.aow.sby-tJbe.áiíau-raacqTeqmpany ihutsi‘B'íief,l::ffl:nfee?all'-',the BerieTciariés^hahieddn-ffhé-e.tiiítxact ag.^ ;taÍn;?thei-Xí-J3ghts ias.-papxqdTepefiqiari.es,; q,,{ ¡$ *,! "
y'''*'lt-'followbffxom wbát-’.»w©ihóve said'fifiat thefinterlocutpry
So ordered.