Opinion
File No. 8052.
Opinion filed November 2, 1937.
Interpleader.
Evidence in insurance company's interpleader action held sufficient to sustain trial court's finding that signature of insured's name on application for change of beneficiary named in life insurance policy was valid and not forgery.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Meade County; HON. JAMES J. McNENNY, Judge.
Action by the Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York against Martha M. Brown and Dora M. Brown, in which the first named defendant filed a cross-complaint against plaintiff and codefendant. From a judgment for cross-complainant and an order denying a motion by defendant Dora M. Brown for a new trial, the latter appeals.
Affirmed.
Plaintiff's agent testified that he told cross-complainant by telephone to have insured, who was cross-complainant's husband, come to bank, of which witness was cashier, and sign application for change of beneficiary from codefendant, who was his mother, to cross-complainant, that latter came to bank, and that witness handed her blank application and asked her to secure insured's signature thereof; cross-complainant's sister testified that she drove to bank with cross-complainant, that latter went into bank and came out with blank application, and that witness went with cross-complainant to garage where insured worked, saw him sign his name to application with lead pencil, returned with him and cross-complainant to bank, and saw insured take application into bank, where he remained for few minutes; plaintiff's agent testified on cross-examination that insured might have brought application so signed into bank, and been told by witness to sign it over in ink, with which signature was traced, and that witness hardly thought it possible that cross-complainant brought in application, was told by him to have it signed in ink, and took it out again; and cross-complainant testified that signature on application was that of insured.
Atwater Helm, of Sturgis, for Appellant.
H.F. Fellows, of Rapid City, and Lynn Milne, of Sturgis, for Respondent.
The only question presented by the record in this case is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding of the trial court that a certain signature appearing upon an application for change of beneficiary named in an insurance policy was a valid signature, and not a forgery. After a consideration of the record, we are convinced that the evidence is amply sufficient to sustain the findings of the trial court. To detail the evidence would serve no useful purpose.
The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.
All the Judges concur.