43 S.E.2d 509 | Ga. | 1947
The allegations of the petition are not sufficient to show such a substantial compliance with the terms of the policies as would be necessary *550 to effect a change in beneficiary upon the application of equitable principles.
Besides for process, the petition prayed: that the defendant, Amelia Pollard, be enjoined from instituting any suit for the purpose of collecting the amount due on the policies; that the defendant insurance company be enjoined from paying the amounts due to the beneficiary named in the policies; that, "if necessary," the administratrix of Andrew J. Pollard's estate be required to specifically perform the contract the insured made with the plaintiff; that all of the defendants be required to set up their various claims and defenses in this case; that the court treat that as done which should have been done; that the court plaintiff be decreed to be the beneficiary in each of the two policies by the application of equitable principles; and for such other relief as the facts of the case warrant.
The defendant, Amelia Pollard, demurred generally to the petition upon the grounds it set forth no cause of action against her and was without equity. The court sustained the demurrer and the exception is to that judgment.
In an ordinary life-insurance policy, where no power to change the beneficiary is reserved to the insured therein, the issuance of the policy confers a vested right in the person so named as beneficiary, and the insured can not change the contract in this respect without the consent of the designated beneficiary.Bilbro v. Jones,
In our opinion, the allegations contained in the petition in the instant case do not show such a compliance with the terms of the policies as is necessary to effect a change in beneficiaries. Some affirmative act on the part of the insured is required. His mere *553
intention or desire to do so will not suffice to work a change of beneficiary. Smith v. Locomotive Engineers' Mut. Life c. Ins.Assn., supra; Niblack's Accident Insurance Benefit Societies, § 218; Freund v. Freund,
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur, except Bell, J.,who dissents. *554