Gutterson v. Gutterson

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Gutterson v. Gutterson

52 N.W. 530, 50 Minn. 278, 1892 Minn. LEXIS 296

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJune 27, 1892

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 52 N.W. 530 (Gutterson v. Gutterson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gutterson v. Gutterson, 52 N.W. 530, 50 Minn. 278, 1892 Minn. LEXIS 296 (Mich. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Gileillan, G. J.

This case is controlled by the decision in Richmond v. Johnson, 28 Minn. 447, (10 N. W. Rep. 596.) Whether the Masonic Relief Association was a mutual life insurance company, or a mutual benefit society, whatever the difference between the two may be, is of no importance. The question is, what was the contract with the association, and what was the effect of the designation by the person whose life was insured of his wife, Nancy S. Gutterson, as the person to receive the sum payable on his death, and of her death during his life ? In this case, as in the case cited, the husband, under the by-laws of the association, might at any time, without the consent of the person first designated, change the designation. While this was so the person designated had but a bare expectancy, which is not property, and which, of course, ceased upon her death.

Order affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Gileillan, G. J.

This case is controlled by the decision in Richmond v. Johnson, 28 Minn. 447, (10 N. W. Rep. 596.) Whether the Masonic Relief Association was a mutual life insurance company, or a mutual benefit society, whatever the difference between the two may be, is of no importance. The question is, what was the contract with the association, and what was the effect of the designation by the person whose life was insured of his wife, Nancy S. Gutterson, as the person to receive the sum payable on his death, and of her death during his life ? In this case, as in the case cited, the husband, under the by-laws of the association, might at any time, without the consent of the person first designated, change the designation. While this was so the person designated had but a bare expectancy, which is not property, and which, of course, ceased upon her death.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 N.W. 530, 50 Minn. 278, 1892 Minn. LEXIS 296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gutterson-v-gutterson-minn-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack