Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/626

 614, fsdbbaij bspobti». �In support of the demurrer it is contended that Mrs. Kemna had such vested interest; that the complainant, whose life was insured for her benefit, could not revoke the policy or change its destination by his own act; that the transaction was in its legal effect an executed gift; and that there was nothing in the family arrangement or agreement that can be eonstrued as an assignment of the policy from the complainant to his wife, or as avalid appointment of her as a new beneficiary. �In support of the bill it is claimed that a change of bene- ficiary was made before the original policy was exchaliged for a paid-up policy; that the law of gifts must be applied to the case ; that there was no such delivery of either of the policies to Mrs. Kemna, or to any one in trust for her, as to make a valid, executed gift ; that Mrs, Kemna had no vested interest in the policies ; and that the transaction was nothing more than a voluntary executory settlement, which was sub- ject to revocation at any time before it was fully executed, and which was not susceptible of gift as a chose in action. Purthermore, it is insisted that by bringing suit on the guardian's bond Mrs. Kemna has ratified the contract which she made with her father, before recited, because, as it is claimed, she had no absolute vested interest in the first pol- icy, and the paid-up policy in which she is claiming a vested interest was procured after the contract was originally made, and in pursuance of it. Precisely what are the rights, and what is the interest, of a designated beneficiary in an ordi- nary policy of life Insurance, and ta what extent the insured may control or change the ultimate destination of the Insur- ance proceeds, is a vexed question, and some of the cases in which the question has been determined, cannot be recon- oiled. �In Clark v. Durand, 12 Wis. 248, the facts were peculiar. The insured procured insurance on her life, payable to Henry S. Durand as guardian of her son. Durand was not in fact such guardian, but advanced the money to pay the premi- ums. Subsequently, the assured, in consideration that Durand would thereafter continue to pay the premiums, transferred ��� �