Wheeler v. Mortland

Appellate Court of Illinois

Wheeler v. Mortland

21 Ill. App. 177, 1886 Ill. App. LEXIS 600

DecidedAugust 26, 1886

StatusPublished

This text of 21 Ill. App. 177 (Wheeler v. Mortland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wheeler v. Mortland, 21 Ill. App. 177, 1886 Ill. App. LEXIS 600 (Ill. Ct. App. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Congee, J.

This was a bill in chancery filed by appellant against appellee, representing that on the 18th day of June, 1878, Arthur W. Argust, the then husband of appellant, insured his life for §5,000, and for the benefit of appellant; that about the 25th day of May, 1884, the said Argust, without the knowledge or ■ consent of appellant, surrendered to the company said policy, and in lieu thereof received a new policy, payable to his two children, Bertram 0. and Wm. H. Argust. It further alleges that her husband died and the amount of the policy was paid to appellee as'the guardian of the children. The bill prays an accounting and that said fund be paid to her by the guardian.

A demurrer was sustained to the bill, and it was dismissed. We think there are no grounds shown by the bill giving a court of equity jurisdiction.

If appellant had a vested"interest in the original policy, which neither her husband nor the insurance company had a right to destroy, we see no reason why she might not proceed in a proper action at law against the company to test her right thereto.

There is, however, no privity between herself and appellee, and for that reason no action could be maintained against him. Affirmed.

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

Congee, J.

This was a bill in chancery filed by appellant against appellee, representing that on the 18th day of June, 1878, Arthur W. Argust, the then husband of appellant, insured his life for §5,000, and for the benefit of appellant; that about the 25th day of May, 1884, the said Argust, without the knowledge or ■ consent of appellant, surrendered to the company said policy, and in lieu thereof received a new policy, payable to his two children, Bertram 0. and Wm. H. Argust. It further alleges that her husband died and the amount of the policy was paid to appellee as'the guardian of the children. The bill prays an accounting and that said fund be paid to her by the guardian.

A demurrer was sustained to the bill, and it was dismissed. We think there are no grounds shown by the bill giving a court of equity jurisdiction.

If appellant had a vested"interest in the original policy, which neither her husband nor the insurance company had a right to destroy, we see no reason why she might not proceed in a proper action at law against the company to test her right thereto.

There is, however, no privity between herself and appellee, and for that reason no action could be maintained against him. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 Ill. App. 177, 1886 Ill. App. LEXIS 600, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wheeler-v-mortland-illappct-1886.