.}'EDERAL REPORTER·... ' .
properly taxable as part of the costs, or that, at least, the plaintiff should pay one-half the aIDount. We are not dealing with a cause in equity, but with an action at law; and, where an expense of this character is made necessary in order to file a proper .plea in an action at law, I know of no rule or practice which allows it to be included in the taxable costs. Motion denied.
w: D. Pe'fl/MJilfJania.
February 4, 188701
Where, on the application of S. as the declared beneficiary, be also paying the premiums, a policy of insurance was issued upon the life of B., the sum insured to be paid to the" assured, " held, that S. was the assured and promisee. and an action on the policyby the personal representative of B. was not maintainable. The fact that after the date of the policy an assignment thereof by B. to S. was indorsed thereon, without the concurrence of the insurance company, an immaterial circumstance, neither changing the contract relations of the parties, nor importing their mutual understanding of their contract.
SAME-AsSIGN'MENT-'CONSENT OP COMPANY.
At Law. Sur demurrer to plaintiff's declaration. B. F. Hughe8, for plaintiff. W. 8. Purviance, for defendant and demurrer. ACHESON, J. This suit is upon a policy of insurance on the life of Beckwith S.Brockway, issued upon the written proposal of DanielF. Seybert, setting forth the latter's desire to effect the proposed insurance, and that he ha.d an interest to the full amount thereof in the life of said Brockway. To the inquiry, "for. whose benefit the assurance is proposed," the written answer was, "Daniel F. Seybert." The original annual premium and the second annual premium, the only ones ever paid, were both paid by Seybert. By the terms of the policy the defendant company promises and agrees, "to and with the said assured," to pay the sum insured "to the said aSsured, his executors, administrators, or assigns," etc. The proposal and answers are expressly made part of the in the plaintiff's declaration. policy, and all are embodied in The ·demurrer raises the question whether the right of action is in the plaintiff, the admipistrator of Beckwith S. Brockway, deceased, or in Daniel F. Seybert. The question is to be solved by ascertaining the person meant by the term "assured," as the same is used in the policy. Now, as already stated, and as clearly appears on the face of the papers constituting the contract,Daniel F. Seybert was the applicant for the policy, in ,his proposal therefor claimed to have an interest in Brockway's life to the entire amount insured, was the declared beneficiary, and paid the premiums. In the absence, then, of anything indicating a contrary intention, the conclusion is irresistible that Seybert was the as-
sured and promisee. The point, indeed, is ruled by the case of ConnecfIicut Hut. Life 1m. Co. v. Luch8, 108 U. S. 498, 2·Sup. Ct. Rep. 949. The policy of insurance sued on there and the one in suit here are in form precisely alike, and in their material facts the two cases do not differ. That some two months after the date of the policy an assignment frorp Brockway to Seybert was indorsed thereon seems to me anunitnportant circumstance. The insurance company was not a party to that assigriment,andnever approved it. It was altogether an parte transaction. Therefore it can:p.ot have the effect of changing the contract relations of the parties, nor does it import their mutual understanding of their contract. At most, it indicates only that Seybert alid Brockway conceived it to be necessary that the policy should be so assigned. ' I am of opinion that the declaration does disclose any cause or right of action existing in the plaintiff,and that the demurrer must be sustained. .
(Olrllttit Oowrt. No D.1UinoiB. January 17,1887.)
Defendant. finding himself in failing circumstances, sold his stock, nomfnallyworth '8,000, to his son for '6,000, taking therefor three notes of '2,000 each, due in one, two, and three years, respectively. without interest, which notes he transferred to the bank, to apply the collections thereof on his indebtedness to the bank of '6,040. No inventory was made, and the Bon had no means. But the son was 88 years of age, had been clerk in the business for many years, and was named as devisee of property worth '5,000 in the will of his grandmother, who since making the will had been demented, and whose health was so poor that she could not live long. Immediately after the sale defendant's sign was taken down, and that of his son was in a few days put up. The proY,erty sold would to any one else, than the son have been worth no more than ,4,000 or $5,000, and was not worth more to the son than what he paid for it. Held that, in the absence of a statute forbidding preferences, that was no attempt to defraud, hinder, or delay defendant'. creditors that would sustain an attachment. .
J. N. Jewett and S. D. Puterbaugh, for plaintiff. ,Goo. B. Foster, for defendant. Stevens, Lee & Horton, for interpleader. BLODGETT, J. The plaintiffs brought three suits by attachment in the Peoria county circuit court, and under the writs issued in these suits a stock of hardware in the store formerly occupied by defendant in the city of Peoria·was levied on. These suits, by order of court, were consolidated, and subsequently the consolidated case was removed to this court. The plaintiff also brought a suit by attachment in this court; and the same stock of goods was attached by' the marshal of this district; and by order of this court the suit removed from the Peoria county circuit court;