Mrs. Myrtle S. Hammack (Watson) v. Dolly Ann Hammack

Fifth Circuit

Mrs. Myrtle S. Hammack (Watson) v. Dolly Ann Hammack

359 F.2d 844, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6440

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 19, 1966

Docket22580_1

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 359 F.2d 844 (Mrs. Myrtle S. Hammack (Watson) v. Dolly Ann Hammack) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mrs. Myrtle S. Hammack (Watson) v. Dolly Ann Hammack, 359 F.2d 844, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6440 (5th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The government’s interpleader suit produced this controversy between a sister and a divorced wife of a deceased soldier over the proceeds of his policy issued under the provisions of the National Service Life Insurance Act. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the sister.

The former wife was the beneficiary of record. The sister claimed that she became the beneficiary under a change made by her brother after his marital separation; even though the instrument evidencing the change, never actually reached the office of the Veterans Administration. The only question presented here is whether the evidence is sufficient to establish such change.

The requirements for effecting a change of beneficiary in a policy of this type are not as strict as the more formal ones where conventional life insurance is involved. Proof of an intention to make such change to a certain person and of an affirmative act exercising the right of change meets the requirements. Mitchell v. United States, 5 Cir., 165 F.2d 758, 2 A.L.R.2d 484 (1948); McKewen v. McKewen, 5 Cir., 165 F.2d 761 (1948); Gann v. Meek, 5 Cir., 165 F.2d 857 (1948); Hawkins v. Hawkins, 5 Cir., 271 F.2d 870 (1959); Aguilar v. United States, 9 Cir., 226 F.2d 414 (1955), cert. den. 351 U.S. 955, 76 S.Ct. 852, 100 L.Ed. 1478; United States v. Williams, D.C.W.Va., 145 F.Supp. 308, affirmed, 4 Cir., 243 F.2d 573 (1957).

A careful examination of the record has led us to the conclusion that the evidence supports the findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment of the trial court.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The government’s interpleader suit produced this controversy between a sister and a divorced wife of a deceased soldier over the proceeds of his policy issued under the provisions of the National Service Life Insurance Act. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the sister.

The former wife was the beneficiary of record. The sister claimed that she became the beneficiary under a change made by her brother after his marital separation; even though the instrument evidencing the change, never actually reached the office of the Veterans Administration. The only question presented here is whether the evidence is sufficient to establish such change.

The requirements for effecting a change of beneficiary in a policy of this type are not as strict as the more formal ones where conventional life insurance is involved. Proof of an intention to make such change to a certain person and of an affirmative act exercising the right of change meets the requirements. Mitchell v. United States, 5 Cir., 165 F.2d 758, 2 A.L.R.2d 484 (1948); McKewen v. McKewen, 5 Cir., 165 F.2d 761 (1948); Gann v. Meek, 5 Cir., 165 F.2d 857 (1948); Hawkins v. Hawkins, 5 Cir., 271 F.2d 870 (1959); Aguilar v. United States, 9 Cir., 226 F.2d 414 (1955), cert. den. 351 U.S. 955, 76 S.Ct. 852, 100 L.Ed. 1478; United States v. Williams, D.C.W.Va., 145 F.Supp. 308, affirmed, 4 Cir., 243 F.2d 573 (1957).

A careful examination of the record has led us to the conclusion that the evidence supports the findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment of the trial court.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

359 F.2d 844, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mrs-myrtle-s-hammack-watson-v-dolly-ann-hammack-ca5-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack