Waltz v. Waltz

166 N.E. 896, 121 Ohio St. 46, 121 Ohio St. (N.S.) 46, 1929 Ohio LEXIS 318
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedMay 29, 1929
Docket21466
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 166 N.E. 896 (Waltz v. Waltz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Waltz v. Waltz, 166 N.E. 896, 121 Ohio St. 46, 121 Ohio St. (N.S.) 46, 1929 Ohio LEXIS 318 (Ohio 1929).

Opinion

By the Court.

Since the beneficiary in the policy, Virgil B. Waltz, survived the insured soldier, but died prior to receiving all the remaining unpaid insurance installments, the present value of the insurance installments thereafter paid into the estate of the deceased soldier descended to the soldier’s *48 widow. Palmer v. Mitchell, Admr., 117 Ohio St., 87, 158 N. E., 187, 55 A. L. R., 566. His widow was thereafter entitled to the whole of the unpaid installments received by the soldier’s estate, unless she is precluded by the release signed by her. The probate court sustained the demurrers to the petitions for review of the widow’s allowance for the reason that at the time of the execution of the release her interest in the war risk insurance “was not assignable or subject to release.” When Dorothy, the soldier’s widow, signed the alleged release, she had then no present interest to assign; her interest, if it should ever accrue to her, was contingent upon the father’s death before receiving all the unpaid installments. Moreover we are of opinion that, under the legislative inhibitions of Congress pertaining to this class of war risk insurance, the widow’s interest as an ultimate beneficiary in the unpaid installments was not assignable. The fund in the hands of the soldier’s administrator accruing from the father’s policy belonged to the widow; and since the award of the widow’s allowance was less than the amount in that fund the court committed no prejudicial error in dismissing the petitions for review of the allowance.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Marshall, C. J., Kinkade, Robinson, Jones, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Lewis v. Lewis
93 P.2d 850 (California Court of Appeal, 1939)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
166 N.E. 896, 121 Ohio St. 46, 121 Ohio St. (N.S.) 46, 1929 Ohio LEXIS 318, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waltz-v-waltz-ohio-1929.