Opinion
10-01-1908
PRUDENTIAL INS. CO OF AMERICA v. MORRIS et al.
Joseph H. Lecour, for Ellen E. Morris. Sylvester J. Smith and Robert A. Stotz, for Carrie V. Morris.
Bill of interpleader by the Prudential Insurance Company of America against Carrie V. Morris and Ellen Elizabeth Morris, individually and as administratrix of Hugh E. Morris, deceased. Decree in favor of Carrie V. Morris.
Joseph H. Lecour, for Ellen E. Morris.
Sylvester J. Smith and Robert A. Stotz, for Carrie V. Morris.
HOWELL, V. C. On April 19, 1878, Hugh E. Morris married Ellen E. Morris, and lived with her until March 19, 1901, when he appears to have deserted her at Poughkeepsie, N. Y. In May, 1904, he first met the woman with whom he afterwards lived, whose name was then Carrie V. Rittenhouse. She went to live with him in 1904, and they lived together in various places in this state as husband and wife. She was known as Mrs. Morris, and they were reputed to be husband and wife by the people of the neighborhood in which they resided. While they were so living together, and on September 7, 1907, he made application to the Prudential Insurance Company for a policy of insurance on his life. After examination he was accepted, and the policy was issued to him, dated September 24, 1907, for $1,000. On October 14, 1907, he died, leaving the policy of insurance in full force. The policy by its terms was made payable to Carrie V. Morris, beneficiary, wife of the insured, if the beneficiary survived the insured; otherwise, to the executors, administrators, or assigns of the insured. After the death of the insured, Carrie V. Morris filed proofs of death with the company; and, both Ellen E. Morris and Carrie V. Morris being claimants for the fund, the insurance company filed a bill of interpleader and paid the money into court; and the case now comes before the court on this interpleader between the two women—the one claiming to be the wife, and as such entitled to the fund, and the other claiming the fund because she was named in the policy as his beneficiary.
At the time the application was made for the policy, and at the time the policy was issued, Morris was living with Carrie V. Morris at Netcong, in this state. They were known to the people with whom they boarded and to the people with whom they were acquainted as husband and wife. She is describedin the application, a copy of which is indorsed on the policy, as his wife, and after the policy was issued it was delivered to Carrie V. Morris by him. She held it until his death, and then submitted proofs of death to the company, which issued the policy. I am of opinion that the woman with whom the insured was living at the time the policy was taken out, and who was then known as Carrie V. Morris, is entitled to the money. She was named specifically as the beneficiary. She was living with him as his wife, and was known among the people with whom they lived as such. The case is a parallel to the case of Overbeck v. Overbeck, 155 Pa. 5, 25 Atl. 646. In this case, as in that, it is certain that the insured did not intend that the proceeds of the policy should go to his lawful wife. On the contrary, he designated the woman with whom he was living as the beneficiary, and the money must be awarded to her.
Objection was made on behalf of the lawful wife against the introduction of any parol testimony tending to show the circumstances in which the parties lived and by which they were surrounded at the time of the issuing of the policy. Parol evidence is always admissible, not to contradict, but to explain, a written instrument; and it is always admissible for the purpose of showing the circumstances under which the instrument was executed or given life. It was only to that extent that evidence was admitted in this case.
The decree will' be in favor of Carrie V. Morris. Under the circumstances, I do not think it proper to award costs against either party.