Goldsborough v. United States

LETTS, Associate Justice.

The only hypothesis upon which a recovery may be had in this case is that the brothers of the insured were the duly designated alternate beneficiaries of his insurance. The theory of plaintiff’s case is that the second application was forced and so should not be taken as superseding the original application which named the broth*94ers as alternate beneficiaries. If the theory be warranted it must not be inconsistent with the agreed facts and must be logically necessary to effectuate the desire and intention of the insured.

I am persuaded that the insured clearly denoted…