Appeal of Beatty

• Decision Date: 22 October 1888
• Docket Number: 257
• Citation: 15 A. 861,122 Pa. 428
• Parties: APPEAL OF AMANDA BEATTY. AMANDA BEATTY ET AL. v. CLARA B. BEATTY.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

15 A. 861

122 Pa. 428

APPEAL OF AMANDA BEATTY.

AMANDA BEATTY ET AL. v. CLARA B. BEATTY.

No. 257

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

October 22, 1888

Argued November 8, 1887

FROM THE DECREE OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NO. 1 OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, IN EQUITY.

No. 257 October Term 1887, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 764 June Term 1887, C.P. in Equity.

On June 4, 1887, Clara B. Beatty, widow of Ross S. Beatty, deceased filed a bill in equity against R. H. Beatty and Amanda Beatty, his wife, in right of said wife, and the Supreme Commandery of the United Order of the Golden Cross of the World, praying upon the facts charged therein: (1) An injunction restraining said Supreme Commandery, its officers and agents, from paying the amount of a certain benefit certificate to said Amanda Beatty, and to restrain said Amanda Beatty from instituting suit therefor. (2) An order and decree directing the payment of said certificate to the plaintiff. (3) General relief.

An answer having been filed, the cause was put at issue and referred to Mr. W. A. Schmidt, appointed examiner and master who, on October 12, 1887, filed a report finding substantially the following facts:

1. That Ross S. Beatty, deceased, joined the United Order of the Golden Cross of the World in 1878, and continued to be a member thereof in good standing until his death on May 16 1887.

2. That when he joined said order, he took out a benefit certificate for $2,000, in which he named his mother, Amanda Beatty, one of the defendants, as the beneficiary.

3. That in the latter part of 1883, having then married, he surrendered the certificate taken out in 1878, and took out another in which his wife, Clara B. Beatty, the plaintiff was named the beneficiary; and this change in the beneficiary was made in strict compliance with the laws of the order governing the same and in the mode and manner prescribed.

4. That when this second certificate was taken out it was delivered over into the personal possession, custody and control of the plaintiff, as a gift to her, and it remained in her possession and control until about September 6, 1886, when, without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff, her husband surrendered it to the order and had a third one issued, in which he named his mother, Amanda Beatty, the beneficiary; that this change in the beneficiary was also made in strict compliance with the laws of the order governing the same and in the mode and manner prescribed; and that the plaintiff had no knowledge of the surrender of this second certificate until after her husband's death.

Upon the foregoing facts the master reported his opinion that Mr. Beatty having named his wife as the beneficiary in the certificate taken out by him in 1883, and having delivered the same into the possession and control of his wife, Clara B. Beatty, the beneficiary named therein, he relinquished all power and dominion over it as between himself and his wife; it was an absolute gift to her, and his subsequent surrender thereof without his wife's knowledge and consent was void; that Clara B. Beatty, the plaintiff, was the owner of the said certificate and had the right to collect the money thereon, and recommended that the cost of the proceeding should be paid, in the first instance, out of the fund in controversy, with the right to the plaintiff to collect the same hereafter by process of law or otherwise from the defendant.

The benefit certificate of Mr. Beatty contained these provisions:

This certificate is issued to Ross S. Beatty, a Member of Duquesne Commandery, No. 26, United Order of the Golden Cross, located at Pittsburgh, Pa., upon evidence received from said Commandery that he is a contributor to the Junior Class Benefit Fund of this Order, and upon condition . . . .

THESE CONDITIONS being complied with, the Supreme Commandery United Order of the Golden Cross, hereby promises and binds itself to pay out of its Class Benefit Fund to Mrs. Amanda M. Beatty, Mother, in accordance with and under the provisions of the law governing said benefit fund, and upon satisfactory evidence of the death of said member, and upon the surrender of this certificate, the sum of two thousand dollars; provided. . . . And further provided, that said member is in good standing in this order at the time of his death, and that this Certificate shall not have been surrendered by said member, and another Certificate issued at his request, in accordance with the laws of this order.

Law II, § 3, provided: "Members may at any time surrender their certificate and have a new one issued, by paying a fee of fifty cents."

The form of application for the new certificate was as follows:

Commandery No.

188

To

Supreme Keeper of Records

I herewith surrender and return to you my benefit certificate, No.

and direct that a new one be issued to me payable to

Fee of fifty cents enclosed.

Yours in S.S.S.,

Member's signature.

Subordinate seal.

Attest

K. of R.

Commandery No.

The benefit certificate must show the name or names of beneficiary to whom the money is to be paid, and the relationship or dependence must be clearly stated in the application or notice of change. The name of some person MUST be given whose receipt for the money will relieve the Order from all further liability.

To the said report of the master, Amanda Beatty filed various exceptions, one of which was that the master erred:

10. In not recommending a decree dismissing the plaintiff's bill, with costs to the defendants.

The exceptions having been passed upon and overruled by the master, and filed with his report, after argument thereof, the court, STOWE, P.J., on October 19, 1887, filed the following opinion and decree:

I can see no just cause of complaint with the finding of facts by the master. They seem to me well sustained by the evidence.

The whole question then is, had Ross S. Beatty a right to surrender the benefit certificate which he had taken out in the name of his wife and delivered to her as her own property, and take out this one of September 17, 1886, in the name of and for the benefit of his mother without the knowledge or consent of his wife. This depends upon whether he had made such a disposition of it as vested an absolute title in her. I think it clear that the mere fact that a member of this society had designated his wife or mother as the beneficiary, did not take away his legal right to change it from one to the other, or even to give it to some third person, if he saw fit to do so. But whenever by sale or assignment of any kind, for value, he creates a legal or equitable right in the transferee, he then lost his right to further change the beneficiary. While this is not like a policy of life insurance, taken out for the benefit of a third party whose name is designated in the policy, but may be changed from time to time in accordance with the regulations of the society, so long as the beneficiary named has no vested interest in it, or, in other words, so long as nothing has been done further than to take out the certificate in his or her name, and the member still retains the possession or control over the certificate, yet I think that it may be the subject of a gift to the beneficiary named, and that such gift will be in legal effect executed by a delivery of such certificate to the beneficiary with the intent duly expressed at the time to give her the sole use, control and ownership in it. If this is so, then Ross S. Beatty made a gift of this certificate to the plaintiff which he had no power to avoid without her consent, and therefore as between the plaintiff and defendant, Mrs. Amanda Beatty, the former is entitled to receive the amount due and payable by the Supreme Commandery, United Order of the Golden Cross of the World, the other defendant.

A decree was then signed and entered, as prayed for in the bill, whereupon the defendants took this appeal, specifying as error, inter alia:

10. The overruling of defendants' 10th exception.

And now, October 22, 1888, the decree is reversed, the...