Lanouette v. Laplante

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Lanouette v. Laplante

36 A. 981, 67 N.H. 118

CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire

DecidedDecember 5, 1891

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 36 A. 981 (Lanouette v. Laplante) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lanouette v. Laplante, 36 A. 981, 67 N.H. 118 (N.H. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

* Per Curiam.

“ When a policy of insurance is effected by any person on his own life or the life of another, expressed to be for the benefit of a third person . . . , the party for whose benefit such policy is so expressed to be made shall be entitled to the sum so insured, against the claims of the creditors or representatives of the party effecting the same.” Gen. Laws, c. 175, s. 2. The facts as reported in the case show that the insurance was effected by Mrs. Lawrence on her own life for the benefit of the defendant, upon an unbounded and well grounded faith that the defendant would make an equitable disposition of the proceeds. It> is also consistent with the findings of the case that the defendant’may have been present with Mrs. Lawrence when the policy *119 was issued. If not, he was immediately informed of it, and adopted her act in procuring the insurance and making Mm the principal beneficiary in tbe policy. Tbe transaction in a legal aspect does not differ from what it would have been if be bad himself procured tbe insurance with Mrs. Lawrence’s assent. The statute referred to relates to legal insurance, and was not intended to give validity to contracts that are void as wagers, and contrary to common-law principle. This policy, payable to tbe defendant, who bad no interest in tbe life of Mrs. Lawrence,but wlio would have acquired, if tbe contract was legal, an interest in her immediate death, was an illegal contract. And it is settled in such a case, when the insurance has been paid according to its terms, that tbe residue remaining after an equitable adjustment may be recovered by tbe administrator of tbe estate of the person insured. Warnock v. Davis, 104 U. S. 775.

When an administrator of Mrs. Lawrence’s estate is appointed, be may be made the plaintiff by an amendment of the bill; and when tbe bill is further amended, if necessary, by adding a count in assumpsit for money bad and received, there will be judgment for tbe plaintiff for tbe balance remaining in the defendant’s bands, after an equitable adjustment of bis payments, including expenses and what he paid Mrs. Lawrence’s daughter.

Case discharged.

Smith, J., did not sit: tbe others concurred.

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

* Per Curiam.

“ When a policy of insurance is effected by any person on his own life or the life of another, expressed to be for the benefit of a third person . . . , the party for whose benefit such policy is so expressed to be made shall be entitled to the sum so insured, against the claims of the creditors or representatives of the party effecting the same.” Gen. Laws, c. 175, s. 2. The facts as reported in the case show that the insurance was effected by Mrs. Lawrence on her own life for the benefit of the defendant, upon an unbounded and well grounded faith that the defendant would make an equitable disposition of the proceeds. It> is also consistent with the findings of the case that the defendant’may have been present with Mrs. Lawrence when the policy *119 was issued. If not, he was immediately informed of it, and adopted her act in procuring the insurance and making Mm the principal beneficiary in tbe policy. Tbe transaction in a legal aspect does not differ from what it would have been if be bad himself procured tbe insurance with Mrs. Lawrence’s assent. The statute referred to relates to legal insurance, and was not intended to give validity to contracts that are void as wagers, and contrary to common-law principle. This policy, payable to tbe defendant, who bad no interest in tbe life of Mrs. Lawrence,but wlio would have acquired, if tbe contract was legal, an interest in her immediate death, was an illegal contract. And it is settled in such a case, when the insurance has been paid according to its terms, that tbe residue remaining after an equitable adjustment may be recovered by tbe administrator of tbe estate of the person insured. Warnock v. Davis, 104 U. S. 775.

When an administrator of Mrs. Lawrence’s estate is appointed, be may be made the plaintiff by an amendment of the bill; and when tbe bill is further amended, if necessary, by adding a count in assumpsit for money bad and received, there will be judgment for tbe plaintiff for tbe balance remaining in the defendant’s bands, after an equitable adjustment of bis payments, including expenses and what he paid Mrs. Lawrence’s daughter.

Case discharged.

Smith, J., did not sit: tbe others concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 A. 981, 67 N.H. 118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lanouette-v-laplante-nh-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack