Presbyterian Assur. Fund v. Allen

Decision Date05 June 1886
Citation7 N.E. 317,106 Ind. 593
PartiesPresbyterian Assur. Fund v. Allen.
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Floyd circuit court.

A. Dowling, for appellant.

John H. Stotsenburg, for appellee.

Elliott, J.

The appellant is a mutual benefit association incorporated by the legislature of Kentucky. Its object, as the charter declares, is “to create and provide a beneficiary fund for the families or relations of deceased members, or for the benefit of members in sickness.” The appellee's complaint is based npon a certificate of membership procured from the corporation by William G. Allen in his life-time. The certificate, although issued by a mutual benefit association, is, in legal contemplation, a policy of insurance, and is in most respects governed by the general rules of law which apply to insurance contracts. Bauer v. Samson Lodge, 102 Ind. 262; S. C. 1 N. E. Rep. 571; Elkhart, etc., Ass'n v. Houghton, 98 Ind. 149;Supreme Lodge v. Schmidt, Id. 374. There are, as we shall hereafter see, some essential differences between such contracts as that evidenced by this certificate and ordinary contracts of insurance; but these differences do not affect the questions arising on the pleadings, which first require our attention.

Statements made by the insured in his application for insurance are not deemed warranties, unless they are incorporated in the policy, or in some appropriate method referred to in that instrument. Com., etc., Co. v. Monninger, 18 Ind. 352;Mutual Ben., etc., Co. v. Miller, 39 Ind. 475; 3 Kent, Comm. 373; May, Ins. § 156; Bliss, Ins. § 34. The statements by the insured in his application are not set forth in the policy, nor in any way is reference made to them, and they cannot be considered warranties. The second paragraph of appellant's answer is based on the erroneous theory that they were warranties; and, as this theory is untenable, the answer is bad.

The provision in the policy issued by the appellant respecting the designation of the beneficiaries is, in substance, that a sum not exceeding $2,000 shall be paid “to such person or persons as he, the insured, may designate by will, or upon the books of this corporation.” The insured, in his application, directed that the amount of the insurance should be paid to his sons, Oscar and William Allen; but subsequently the insured, with the consent of the appellant, but without the consent of the original beneficiaries, designated on its books Mary E. Allen, whom he had married, as the beneficiary. The charter of the association, granted by the legislature of Kentucky, provides, among other things, that “upon the decease of any member of this association the fund to which this family is entitled shall be paid as may be designated in the application for membership. This being changed by death, or otherwise impossible, it shall go- First, to the widow and infant children; second, to his mother and sister; third, to his father and brothers; fourth, to his grandchildren; fifth, to his legal heirs.” The appellant contends that the designation of the beneficiaries in the application so fixed their rights that they could not be changed without their consent. If this were an ordinary policy of insurance, issued by an ordinary insurance company, this contention would prevail. Hutson v. Merrifield, 51 Ind. 24;Pence v. Makepeace, 65 Ind. 345;Godfrey v. Wilson, 70 Ind. 50;Wilburn v. Wilburn, 83 Ind. 55;Harley v. Heist, 86 Ind. 196;Damron v. Penn., etc., Ins. Co., 99 Ind. 478;Penn., etc., Ins. Co. v. Wiler, 100 Ind. 92;Chapin v. Fellowes, 36 Conn. 132; S. C. 4 Amer. Rep. 49; Glanz v. Gloeckler, 104 Ill. 573;Manhattan Life Ins. Co. v. Smith, 5 N. E. Rep. 417; Bliss, Ins. (2d Ed.) 540. These cases are representatives of a large class, declaring that in ordinary cases of life insurance the beneficiary designated cannot be changed without his consent. There is much diversity of opinion upon the question as to the applicability of this principle to policies like the one before us, issued by associations of the class to which appellant belongs. McClure v. Johnson, 56 Iowa, 620;S. C. 10 N. W. Rep. 217;Tennessee Lodge v. Ladd, 5 Lea, 716;Durian v. Central Verein, etc., 7 Daly, 168; Richmond v. Johnson, 28 Minn. 447; S. C. 11 Ins. Law J. 215, and 10 N. W. Rep. 596;Swift v. Railway Passenger & T. C. Ben. Ass'n, 96 Ill. 309;Ballou v. Gile, 50 Wis. 614;S. C. 7 N. W. Rep. 561;Masonic Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. McAuley, 10 Wash. Law Rep. 724; Kentucky Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Miller, 13 Bush, 489;Catholic Ben. Ass'n v. Priest, 46 Mich. 429;S. C. 9 N. W. Rep. 481;Expressmen's Aid Soc. v. Fenn, 9 Mo. App. 412;Maryland, etc., Soc. v. Clendinen, 44 Md. 429; S. C. 22 Amer. Rep. 52. The weight of authority, as will appear from an examination of the cases cited, is in favor of the general doctrine that beneficiaries may be changed in cases where policies like the one before us are issued by such associations as the present, and that in this respect such policies are not governed by the general rule which governs ordinary insurance contracts. But, granting that this is the general rule, still it cannot prevail if the charter of the association prohibits a change in the beneficiary first agreed upon and designated. It is firmly settled that a contract must be made in the mode prescribed by the corporate charter, and must be one authorized by it. Ohio Ins. Co. v. Nunnemacher, 15 Ind. 294;Leonard v. American Ins. Co., 97 Ind. 299;Ashbury, etc., Co., v. Riche, L. R. 7 H. L. 653; Head v. Providence Ins. Co., 2 Cranch, 127. Of the provisions of the charter and by-laws of the corporation all who become members are chargeable with knowledge. Bauer v. Samson Lodge, supra.

Whatever may be the rule where the charter does not provide a mode of exercising corporate power, it is quite clear that where the charter does prescribe the mode it must be followed, even though it requires a procedure different from the one prescribed by a general rule of law. Hence it is here of controlling importance to rightly ascertain and decide whether the mode of exercising the corporate power is prescribed, and whether the mode prescribed inhibits the changing of beneficiaries after they have been once designated. The provisions of the charter, as we read them, do prohibit a change of beneficiaries by the act of the insured and insurer, for they declare that the benefit shall be paid as may be designated in the application; and that, “this being changed by death, or otherwise becomes impossible, it shall go” in the mode which is specifically provided. We can see no way to avoid the conclusion that this...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • St. Louis Police Relief Association v. Tierney
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • January 30, 1906
    ...v. Ins. Co., 38 Mo. 255; Ruggles v. Collier, 43 Mo. 375; Mathews v. Skinker, 62 Mo. 332; Ellerbe v. Faust, 119 Mo. 653; Assn. Fund v. Allen, 106 Ind. 593; 7 N.E. 317; Stephenson v. Stephenson, 64 Iowa 534; v. Taylor, 111 Ind. 121, 12 N.E. 116; Sup. Council v. Smith, 45 N. J. 466, 17 A. 770.......
  • Carpenter v. Knapp
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • April 10, 1897
    ... ... the fund in controversy. Intervener appeals. The plaintiff ... also appeals from ... Ben ... Soc. v. Burkhart, 110 Ind. 189; Presbyterian Mut. Assur ... Fund v. Allen, 106 Ind. 593 ...          If ... ...
  • St. Louis Police Relief Ass'n v. Tierney
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • January 30, 1906
    ...are frequently declared ultra vires in a proper case. Head v. Prov. Ins. Co., 6 U. S. 127, 2 L. Ed. 229; Presby. Mut. Assurance Fund v. Allen, 106 Ind. 593, 7 N. E. 317; Matthews v. Skinker, 62 Mo. 329, 21 Am. Rep. 425; Leonard v. Amer. Ins. Co., 97 Ind. 299; Couch v. City Fire Ins. Co., 38......
  • Lloyd v. Royal Union Mut. Life Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • October 3, 1917
    ... ... Samson Lodge, 102 Ind. 262, 1 N.E. 571; Assurance ... Fund v. Allen, 106 Ind. 593, 7 N.E. 317; Freund v ... Freund, 218 Ill. 189, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT