Johnson v. New York Life Insurance

The majority opinion is based upon the assumption that the interest of the beneficiary named in the policy could only be divested in the manner prescribed in the policy. In a limited sense this is correct: That is to say, in order to substitute another beneficiary, on the face of the policy the manner specified in the policy on the subject must be substantially followed; but substitution *192of a beneficiary on tbe face of a policy, and an assignment and delivery of it to a third person are, as stated in Block v. Valley Mutual Insurance Association, entirely different propositions.

Bef erring to…