Whitridge v. Barry

Stewart, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The National Life Insurance Company filed a bill of interpleader, in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, bringing the fund in dispute, within that jurisdiction for determination. The respective claimants of the proceeds of the policy in question, under the decree of interpleader, have appeared, and the case must be disposed of according to the law of this State. It seems to be conceded, on all sides, that the lex fori must govern in the determination of the case.

The policy in question, was taken on the life of John S. Barry, for the sole use of his wife, Mrs. Barry, the appellee, to whom it was made payable, or to her assigns. There can be no doubt, it was a chose in action of hers, which she had the. right to assign, or otherwise dispose of, with her husband’s consent. N. Y. L. I. Co. vs. Flack, 3 Md., 341 ; Emerick vs. Coakley, 35 Md., 185 . The alleged assignment was not endorsed on the policy.

Mrs. Barry’s signature was attached to a blank printed form of assignment, without name, date, and with no direction from her, as to the filling up the blanks with the name of any person, or with one or more, or all of her policies; or ¹⁵¹ to deliver the paper, or policy, signed by her, to any person. Whether such a paper, signed and delivered in blank, with an express or implied authority, from the party signing it, to fill up the blank, to the person to whom it is delivered, as he thought proper, and who after-wards filled it up, accordingly, is a valid assignment and sufficient to pass the title to the chose in action, it is not necessary, from the view we take of this case, to decide. The authorities are conflicting, and it is a debateable question. See Kent vs. Somerville, 7 G. & J., 265 ; Chesley vs. Taylor, 3 Gill, 257 ; Shriner vs. Lamborn, 12 Md., 174; Sp iker vs. Nydegger, 30 Md., 315 ; Byers vs. McClanahan, 6 G. & J., 250 ; White vs. Vermont and Mass.

R. R. Co., 21 Howard, 375 ; McNeil vs. Tenth National Bank, 46 N. Y., 329 ; Litch vs. Wells, 48 N. Y., 637 ; Edgerton vs. Thomas, 5 Selden, 40; Dawson vs. Coles, 16 Johnson, 54 ; Drury vs. Foster, 2 Wallace, 24; Hibblewhitevs. M’Morine, 6 Mees. & Wels., 200. Bruñe having advanced to Barry certain promissory notes, to a large amount, which he had finally to pay, upon the faith of Barry’s securing him by the assignment of policies of insurance and other property ; constituted a sufficient consideration to support Mr. Barry’s assignment to Bruñe of the policy in question. Hannan vs. Towers, 3 H. & J., 147 ; Stevenson vs. Reigart, 1 Gill, 27 .

We treat the matter as it affected Bruñe ; his assignee, Whitridge, can claim no greater right than Bruñe held in the policy. The signature of Mrs. Barry to the assignment of the policy (if the assignment was otherwise valid) made with the consent of her husband, would be sufficient without his signature thereto. Whether he signed with her or not, was not material to its validity. Before the Code, the wife, as to her separate property, if not restricted, to a prescribed mode, could convey it, as if she were a feme sole.

Cook vs. Husbands, 11 Md., 492 ; ¹⁵² Chew’s Adm. vs. Beall, 13 Md., 348 ; Buchanan vs. Turner, 26 Md., 1 . The 2nd Sect, of 45th Art. Code, provides for the conveyance of the wife’s property, hy a joint deed, with the husband; and the 11th section, where the husband is required tojoin in the conveyance, were intended to apply to such conveyances of her property, as are otherwise required by the law, to be made by all persons, by deed or other instrument of writing, as the case may be. They do not exclude the ordinary methods of conveyance. The purpose of