Waters v. Conselho Supremo Da Uniao Portugueza Do Estado De California

THE COURT.

This was an action brought by respondent to cancel a certain certificate of insurance issued by a fraternal insurance society operating under the provisions of the Fraternal Act of 1911 (Stats. 1911, p, 1320), and to declare a prior policy to be in force and effect. The complaint

[361]

alleges that respondent is the surviving wife of the insured, Antone E. Waters; that she acquired a vested right in the prior insurance policy by reason of certain agreements or understandings betweeh herself and her husband at that time and by reason of her conduct thereafter with reference to the policy; that thereafter in 1913 the insured delivered up his policy to be canceled, that it was canceled, and a new policy— the one in suit designating the appellant as beneficiary— issued; that the issuance of the new policy, of which the appellant, a sister of the deceased, was made the beneficiary, was brought about through fraud and undue influence practiced upon deceased by appellant, and that at the time of the issuance of the new policy and consequent change of beneficiary deceased was of unsound mind and incapable of making a valid designation of beneficiary for that reason.

The court found each and all the allegations of the complaint to be true and supported by competent evidence, although it may be stated at the outset that there is no evidence in support of the allegations of fraud and undue influence.

The conclusion we have reached on the merits of the case renders unnecessary a determination of respondent’s motion to dismiss the appeal; and for the same reason it will be unnecessary for us to consider the question whether or not the wife, having in accordance with an agreement with her husband paid the dues upon the policy as long as the fraternal society would accept them, with the understanding that she should be the beneficiary thereof, acquired a vested interest in the policy.

It is the contention of the appellant that the evidence in the case is insufficient to support the finding of mental incompeteney. We are of the opinion that this contention is not maintainable, and that there is an abundance of evidence in the record that Waters was permanently insane prior to the time that he made the change of beneficiary in question.