Townsend v. Fidelty Company, (Ia.) 144 N.W. 576; Hopkins v. Northwestern Assurance Company, 99 Fed. 202; Sangunitto v. Goldey, 84 N.Y.S. 989; Gratten v. Insurance Company, (N.Y.) 15 Hun. 74; Wilburn v. Wilburn, 83 Ind. 55. The verbal assignability of a life insurance policy is no other than the inherent right of an owner to dispose of his property. 37 C.J. 425; Bowers v. Parker, 58 N.H. 565; Loomis v. Eagle Life Company, 6 Grey 396. Appellant's claim is not supported by equitable principles. Jory v. Supreme Council, (Cal.) 38 P. 526. BLUME, Justice.

The beneficiary in New Hampshire only has a right to the proceeds of the policy upon the death of the insured. Cf. Barton v. Association, 63 N.H. 535, 3 A. 627 (1885) (if insured retains power to change the beneficiary, the named beneficiary has only a contingent interest in proceeds of the policy); Bowers v. Parker, 58 N.H. 565 (1879) (as between owner/insured and vested beneficiary of life insurance policy, owner/insured has superior right of possession of policy while alive). Finally, since the trustee has absolute "collateral protection" for receiving the cash surrender value, i.e., by putting the insurance company on notice as to his rights in the policy, the trustee can afford to be liberal in repayment terms and timing in those cases in which the equities weigh in favor of giving the debtor an extended time for payment in order to preserve the policy in force.

The person who contracts for a policy and pays the premiums is entitled to its possession, especially where he is the person insured and has reserved the right to change the beneficiary, and has not by gift or otherwise parted with the right of possession. He may maintain his right to such possession by appropriate action, and his motives in seeking to recover the policy are immaterial. Geary v. Geary (Pa.), 12 A.2d 23; C.I.T. Corporation v. Flint, 333 Pa. 350, 356, 357, 5 A.2d 126, 121 A.L.R. 1022; Bowers v. Parker, 58 N.H. 565; Carpenter v. Carpenter, 116 N.E. 494; John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Bedford (R.I.), 89 A. 154; Couch, Cyclopedia of Insurance, p. 904, Sec. 322, p. 1038, Sec. 351. Roberds, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

See C. I. T. Corp. v. Flint, 333 Pa. 350, 356-357. It is clear that this defendant is not entitled to withhold possession of the policies simply because she is the named beneficiary therein. See Bowers v. Parker, 58 N.H. 565. The contracts of insurance were entered into between the plaintiff and the respective insurance companies, upon plaintiff's application. The policies were issued to him designating him as the party insured.

. Prescott, 67 Me. 582; Preston v. Conn. Mut. L. Ins. Co., 95 Md. 101, 51 A. 838; Pingrey v. Nat. L. Ins. Co., 144 Mass. 374, 11 N.E. 562; Boyden v. Mass. Mut. L. Ins. Co., 153 Mass. 544, 27 N.E. 669; Millard v. Brayton, 177 Mass. 533, 59 N.E. 436, 52 L. R. A. 117, 83 Am. St. Rep. 294; Crittenden v. Phoenix Mut. L. Ins. Co., 41 Mich. 442, 2 N.W. 657; Lockwood v. Mich. Mut. L. Ins. Co., 108 Mich. 334, 66 N.W. 229; Allis v. Ware, 28 Minn. 166, N.W. 666; Schoenau v. Grand Lodge, etc., 85 Minn. 349, 88 N.W. 999; Grego v. Grego, 78 Miss. 443, 28 So. 817; Jackson Bank v. Williams, 77 Miss. 398, 26 So. 965, 78 Am. St. Rep. 530; U.S. Casualty Co. v. Kacer, 169 Mo. 301, 69 S.W. 370, 58 L. R. A. 436, 92 Am. St. Rep. 641, overruling Gambs v. Covenant Mut. L. Ins. Co., 50 Mo. 44; Conn. Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Ryan, 8 Mo. App. 535; Warner v. M. W. of A. (1903) 67 Neb. 233, 93 N.W. 397, 61 L. R. A. 603, 108 Am. St. Rep. 634, 2 Ann. Cas. 660; Fisher v. Donovan, 57 Neb. 361, 77 N.W. 778, 44 L. R. A. 383; Bowers v. Parker, 58 N.H. 565; City Sav. Bank v. Whittle, 63 N.H. 587, 3 A. 645; Supreme Council, etc., v. Adams, 68 N. H. 236, 44 A. 380; Landrum v. Knowles, 22 N.J. Eq. 594; Loco. Engrs. Mut. L., etc., Ins. Ass'n v. Winterstein, 58 N.J. Eq. 189, 44 A. 199; Fowler v. Butterfly, 78 N.Y. 68, 34 Am. Rep. 507; Greeno v. Greeno, 23 Hun (N.Y.) 478; Ruppert v. Union Mut. Ins. Co., 30 N.Y. Super. Ct. 155; Butler v. State Mut. L. Assur. Co., 55 Hun (N.Y.) 296, 8 N.Y. Supp. 411; Barry v. Equitable L. Assur. Soc., 59 N.Y. 587; Martin v. Mfgs. Acc. Indem. Co., 60 Hun (N.Y.) 535, 15 N.Y. Supp. 309; Stilwell v. Mut. L. Ins. Co., 72 N.Y. 385; Merchant v. White (Sup. Ct. Tr. T.) 37 Misc. Rep. (N.Y.) 376, 75 N.Y. Supp. 756, affirmed, Id., 77 App. Div. (N.Y.) 539, 79 N.Y. Supp. 1; Sanguinitto v. Goldey, 88 App. Div. (N.Y.) 78, 84 N.Y. Supp. 989; Carpenter v. Negus (Sup. Ct. Sp. T.) 17 Misc. Rep. (N.Y.) 172, 40 N.Y. Supp. 995; Shipman v. Protected Home Circle, 174 N.Y. 398, 67 N.E. 83, 63 L. R. A. 347; Sterrit v. Lee (Sup. Ct. Sp.

Under this policy the person insured, and the beneficiary, was Richard Burke, with the right to the custody of the policy in the father. Bowers v. Parker, 58 N.H. 565. The father paid the premiums each week as they became due on the policy up to June 26, 1911, at which time Richard had more than arrived at the age of twenty-one years. No premiums thereafter were paid upon the policy by any one. So far as appears, without the authority of Richard, Margaret Burke, Richard's mother, about July 1, 1911, entered into negotiations with an agent of the defendant which resulted in the delivery of the policy to the defendant and the tender of a paid up policy to the mother on July 3, 1911.

The beneficial interest in the life insurance policy procured for his benefit, and made payable to him, became vested in him when the policy was issued. Kimball v. Gilman, 60 N.H. 54; Stokell v. Kimball, 59 N.H. 13; Bowers v. Parker, 58 N.H. 565; May Insurance, s. 392. His father's assignment gave the bank no title to the proceeds of the policy.