Baker v. Young
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. The assignment is void because Ellen Baker and George Baker could not execute a valid assignment of Ellen Baker’s interest in said policy before the court, under any circumstance, by reason of her coverture.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. The assignment is void because Ellen Baker and George Baker could not execute a valid assignment of Ellen Baker’s interest in said policy before the court, under any circumstance, by reason of her coverture. (Eadie v. Slimmon, 26 N. Y. 9; Laws of N. Y. 1840, p. 59 ; Wood v. Simmons, 20 Mo. 363 ; Jackson v. Purdew, 1 Russell, ch. 1; Honner v. Morton, 3 Russell, ch. 65 ;■ Hill on Trust. 417, and eases cited.) On general principles of equity, such an assignment is void as against the children of Ellen Baker. In the case at bar the trustee held the legal title…
1Opinion of the CourtWagner, Judge
Plaintiff, George R. Baker, is the husband of Ellen P. Baker, and Henry W. and Kate are their minor children. He brings this suit as the trustee of his wife and the next friend of the children. It seems that the plaintiff procured an insurance on his life for the benefit of his wife, in the Mutual Life Insurance Company of New Jersey, for the sum of $5,000, the premium being paid by himself; that subsequently, with the consent of the company, the husband and wife joined in an assignment of the policy to the defendant, Young, to secure an indebtedness of the husband. At the date of the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Eadie v. . SlimmonNew York Court of Appeals · 1862
3Cited by12 opinions
- Mente v. TownsendSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1900
- Heusner v. Mutual Life InsuranceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1891
- Reed v. PainterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
- Wanschaff v. Masonic Mutual Benefit SocietyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1890
- Connecticut Mutual Line Insurance v. RyanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1880
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.