Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/632

 MO VEDEBAL BEPOBTBB. �for policies fullj paid up; and it maybe fairly inferred, from the allegations of the bill, that this was determined upon before any understanding was had that the proceeds of the paid-up policies should ultimately go to Mrs. Franziska Brockhaus. It was then arrangea, for reasons stated in the bill, that such proceeds when realized should be received by Mrs. Brockhaus, but for the beneut of all the children, It is true that this transpired before the actnal surrender of the original policies, and consequently there was a change of beneficiary, if any was in fact or legal contemplation made, before the paid-up policies were taken. But I can hardly think that the arrangement made in family council should be held to have operated as an assignment of the original policy running to Aima, least of all of the new paid-up policy which was subsequently made to her; and in this connection it isnot to be overlooked that, notwithstanding what had pre- viously transpired between the parties, the new policy was in terms made payable to Aima. The alleged change of beneficiary was not, in nameat least, carried into that policy. It may, perbaps, be fairly presumed that the complainant, in taking a paid-up policy, relied on Mrs. Kemna's adherence to the understanding with reference to the ultimate appropria- tion of the proceeds ; but I do not think it can be said, upon the present allegations of the bill, that the family arrange- ment was the substantial consideration which prompted the exehange of the old policies for new paid-up policies. And on the whole, with reference to the circum stances which pre- ceded and which accompanied the surrender of the first policy running to Aima for the paid-up policy, as also with refer- ence to the subsequent writtten agreement, it must, I think, be said that a change of beneficiary could not be made without the legal consent of Mrs. Kemna, and such consent was not given beyond her power of disafiBrmance. �It is alleged that the complainant caused himself to be appointed guardian of Mrs. Kemna for the receipt of the insuranee moneys, at the instance of the Insurance company, and because it required him so to act. But I do not think ��� �