Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

64 N.C. 695

Roberts v. . Roberts

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided June 5, 1870

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1870-06-05

Civil action, tried before Pool, I., at Spring Term 1870 of Chowan Court. The plaintiff demanded one-half of a Policy of $4,012 upon the life of her husband, W. 0. Roberts deceased, which was the only estate left by the deceased, and had been received by the defendant as his executor, and was held by him subject to the disposal made thereof in the will. The Policy had been issued by the Georgia Masonic Mutual Life Insurance Company.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently May 1880

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1870-06-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Beade, J.

¶1 Art. VII, sec. 3, of the By-Laws of the Georgia Masonic Mutual Life Insurance Company, provides that a the sum due upon the policy of a deceased member of the *697 Company, shall be paid to the widow, for the use of herself and the dependent children of the deceased.” It-declares the intention to be, to keep from want the families, of its members, and to keep them from becoming a burden to the Brotherhood; and it provides that, “ in no case shall a member dispose of his policy by will or otherwise, so as to deprive his widow or his dependent children of its benefits.”"

¶2 The testator, after providing for his funeral expenses, gives $1,000 to his wife, and the remainder, about $3,000, to his infant son, for his education, &c. The widow dissents from the will, and claims, as the proper construction of the policy, that the sum due upon it must be equally divided between herself and the child, share and share alike; and that the testator had no power otherwise to dispose of it.

¶3 We do not think that is the proper construction of the policy. Where the member leaves a wife and dependent children, the money must go to their support, according to their necessities, so as to keep them from being a burden to-the Brotherhood; and as one may be more dependent than another, there must be a reasonable discretion in the member to make such discriminations as will effect the main purpose of the policy; and the division need not be made share and share alike. This construction is strengthened by the fact, that when the member leaves no widow, and his family is broken up, then the money is directed to be divid'ed out among his children or other relations, “ share and share-alike;” but there is no such direction, if there is a widow.

¶4 We do not see any unreasonable exercise of this discretion on the part of the testator. The widow was otherwise provided for, to an amount which, if added to the $1,000 given in the will, would make her more than equal with the child;, and the child has to be educated. The widow having already-received the $1,000 left in the will, she is not entitled to any more.

¶5*698 There was error in giving her a judgment. The judgment must be reversed, and judgment entered here for the defendant, for costs.

¶6 Per Curiam. Judgment reversed.

/64/nc/695 · .json · Public domain