153 Va. 567 | Va. | 1929
delivered the opinion of thecourt.
The facts of this case are undisputed. They are well stated in the petition for an appeal, and are repeated here.
Arthur Price, a citizen of Scott county, Virginia, was a soldier in the Army of the United States during the World War, and obtained the war risk insurance issued by the government, naming his father, W. H. Price, and his stepmother, Ida P. Price, as equal beneficiaries. The soldier was unmarried. He died intestate in the military service on the 3rd day of October, 1918. Under the certificate of insurance a total of 240 monthly installments were payable,- and the father as beneficiary drew installments until the 14th day of April, 1924, upon which date he died. Under the
There is no dispute as to her interest and rights in the policy and they are not being litigated in these proceedings.
The remaining installments have been commuted and paid to E. H. McConnell, the duly, appointed administrator of the estate of the deceased soldier, Arthur Price. There is in the hands of the administrator the sum of $3,927.00.
W. H. Price, the father of' the soldier, was twice married. By the first marriage the following children were born: R. N. Price, John Price, George Price, W. T. Price, Susan P. Catron, nee Price, and Mary Spears, nee Price. .Mary Spears is dead and she left surviving her the following children: James Spears, Doek Spears, Idna Spears, Linnie Spears and George Spears. W. H. Price, by his second marriage, left surviving him: Earl W. Price, Robert C. Price and Ellen V. Price, children, and Ida P. Price, his widow.
The administrator of the deceased soldier brought this suit asking the ccgirt to direct him to whom to pay the fund in his hands.
The appellant is the widow of W. H. Price, deceased, who was the father of Arthur Price, deceased, the soldier. The decree complained of says: “The commuted value of the insurance of Arthur Price payable to his father at the death of W. H. Price passed under the laws of the United States to the heirs of Arthur Price deceased as defined by the laws of Virginia.” Under this decree appellant gets no part of the funds in controversy and her children only receive one-half each
There are two assignments of error—
1. The court erred in holding that the distributees,, or heirs, of the estate of the soldier, Arthur Price, were-determined as of the date of the death of his father.
2. The court erred in holding that the petitioner was not entitled to anything.
It may be well to state here that the decree of the-trial court designating the heirs of Arthur Price does not determine them as of the date of the death of the beneficiary (the father), but this question will be further discussed when we come to discuss the decree itself.
The rights of the parties in this case are determined by the World' War Veteran’s act, section 303, 38 U. S. C. A. section 514, and the statute of descents and distributions in Virginia.
Section 303 of the World War Veteran’s act as amended by act of Congress March 4,1925, section 14 (38 TJ. S. C. A. section 514), appears in the margin.
W- H. Price, the beneficiary, took no vested interest in the unpaid installments of this insurance. See White v. United States, 270 U. S. page 175, 46 S. Ct. 274, 70 L. Ed. 530; Cassarello v. U. S. (D. C.) 271 Fed. page 486; Horst v. U. S. (D. C.) 283 Fed. page
Insured had the right to change the beneficiary without the consent of the beneficiary, and Congress had the right to say, as it has said, where the unpaid installments, after the death of the beneficiary, shall go. Congress has said that the remaining unpaid installments shall be payable to the estate of the insured — in this case, Arthur Price’s estate (the soldier). See Cassarello v. United States (D. C.) 271 Fed. 486.
The views above expressed are in conformity with the contention of the appellee and with the decree of the court heretofore quoted.
It seems to be conceded by the appellant that under the Virginia statute the heirs at law and distributees of Arthur Price, the soldier, are determined as of the date of the death of Arthur Price, but, as heretofore stated, they insist that the court held by its decree that the heirs and distributees of the estate of Arthur Price were determined as of the date of the death of the father, the beneficiary. A careful consideration of the decree of the court does not justify this conclusion, and we are of opinion that the heirs at law of the insured are to be determined at the date of his death, and that they, after the life estate of the
We, therefore, affirm the decree of the Circuit Court of Scott county.
Affirmed,
“If no person within the permitted class be designated as beneficiary for yearly renewable term insurance by the insured either in his lifetime or by his last will and testament, or if the designated beneficiary does not