Sundstrom v. Sundstrom

(dissenting) — The life insurance policy in controversy, having been acquired by George Sundstrom before his marriage, was, and continued to be, his separate property. By the terms of the policy, he had the right to change the beneficiary at will; and, therefore, his wife, the respondent, merely by-virtue of having been named as beneficiary, in the absence of an assignment, acquired no vested interest, but only a mere expectancy, revocable, without her consent, at the pleasure of the insured. Cade v. Head Camp, Pacific Jurisdiction W. O. W., 27 Wash. 218, 67 Pac. 603; Koch v. Aetna Life Ins.…