Arrington v. Grand Lodge of Brotherhood of R. Trainmen

Decision Date11 October 1927
Docket NumberNo. 5013.,5013.
Citation21 F.2d 914
PartiesARRINGTON v. GRAND LODGE OF BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN et al.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Timothy S. Lyons, of Augusta, Ga., for appellant.

W. Inman Curry, of Augusta, Ga., for appellee Mrs. Ethel Inglett.

Before WALKER, BRYAN, and FOSTER, Circuit Judges.

WALKER, Circuit Judge.

The opinion rendered by the District Judge contains the following statement, the correctness of which was conceded during the argument in this court:

"On November 23, 1918, the Grand Lodge of Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen issued a benefit certificate to Harvey W. Inglett, in which his sister, Ruby Inglett (now Arrington), was named as beneficiary. Subsequently Inglett married Ethel Smith. On December 24, 1923, Inglett was injured, between 11 and 12 o'clock, in a railroad wreck, both of his legs being amputated by reason of such accident, and he died at about 6:30 on the same day. Subsequent to his injury, Inglett executed a paper reading as follows:

"`To Mrs. H. W. Inglett: This is to certify that I want my wife to have my B. of R. T. insurance, which is made to my sister, Ruby Inglett. I have some money in bank at Augusta, Georgia; get that. If death overtakes me, I am ready to meet God. I also have some money in the Holston National Bank at Knoxville; get that. I want James Church to redeem that note, and Frank Phillips.

"`Signed H. W. Inglett.

"`In case you don't survive this, death overtakes you, I want my father to have all.

"`R. H. Stokes wrote this. "`F. J. Andrews "`J. C. Lusk "`L. A. Copenhaver.

"`Witness as to desire concerning Brotherhood insurance to be transferred to wife as beneficiary:

"`4:15 p. m. S. R. Miller, M. D. "`Nellie Ellis, R. N "`Chas. F. Mooney "`Geo. A. Johnson.'

"The above paper was probated in Knox county, Tennessee, where Inglett died, as the last will and testament of Inglett. Due proof of the death was made by the legal representative of Inglett. The paper was executed after the legs of Inglett had been amputated. Ruby Inglett Arrington received from R. H. Stokes, administrator of the estate of Harvey W. Inglett, a letter requesting Mrs. Arrington to execute an assignment of her interest in such certificate to Ethel A. Inglett.

"The said Brotherhood filed its bill of interpleader in this court, and paid the money into court, where it now is. Mrs. Arrington claims as the beneficiary in the certificate and avers that her interest thereunder has never been legally divested. Mrs. Inglett claims the proceeds of the certificate for the following reasons:

"`(1) That her husband, Harvey W. Inglett, was totally and permanently disabled, as defined in section 68 of the constitution of the Grand Lodge Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, and the amount due under said benefit certificate immediately vested in him upon his receiving said total and permanent injury, and was his to dispose of by assignment of the fund or by will, and he did assign or devise the fund to her by the paper executed by him just before his death.

"`(2) Because she is the beneficiary under said certificate; the said Harvey W. Inglett, prior to his death, having effected a change of beneficiary in her favor, by the paper executed just before his death.

"`(3) Because the benefit certificate, which is a mere chose in action, was assigned to her by Harvey W. Inglett, by the paper executed just before his death.'"

The Brotherhood's bill of interpleader contained allegations to the effect that, upon the insured's death while in good standing, it became liable to pay to the party or parties legally entitled thereto the sum of $1,800, and that it is lawfully indebted in that amount to one of the claimants under said certificate. By the terms of the certificate mentioned, provisions of the Brotherhood's constitution constituted part of the contract between the insured and the Brotherhood. The constitution of the Brotherhood contains the following...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Bohannon v. Manhattan Life Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 13 Julio 1977
    ...191 S.E.2d 587 (1972); Barrett v. Barrett, 173 Ga. 375, 160 S.E. 399 (1931), aff'd, 177 Ga. 190, 170 S.E. 70 (1933); Arrington v. Grand Lodge, 21 F.2d 914 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 276 U.S. 617, 48 S.Ct. 213, 72 L.Ed. 733 (1927) (applying Georgia law). This rule, however, is subject to exce......
  • Widows Fund of Sudan Temple v. Umphlett
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 18 Septiembre 1957
    ...v. Grand United Order of Odd Fellows, supra; Swygert v. Durham Life Insurance Company, 229 S.C. 199, 92 S.E.2d 478, 479; Arrington v. Grand Lodge, 5 Cir., 21 F.2d 914; Home Mut. Ben. Ass'n v. Rowland, 155 Ark. 450, 244 S.W. 719, 28 A.L.R. 86, and cases cited in the annotation, pages 95-96; ......
  • Wickes v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • 19 Octubre 1936
    ...v. Burnside (Tex. Civ. App.) 175 S.W. 169; Wentworth v. Equitable L. Assur. Soc., 65 Utah 581, 238 P. 648. And see, also, Arrington v. Grand Lodge, 21 F.2d 914, 916 C.A.5); Holt v. Russell, 30 F.2d 597 (C. C.A.5); Sbisa v. Lazar et al., 78 F.2d 77, 78 (C. C.A.5). These cases clearly demonst......
  • Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Dotson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
    • 6 Octubre 1950
    ...object to strict compliance with the provisions, the change becomes effective on the theory of waiver. Arrington v. Grand Lodge of Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, 5 Cir., 21 F.2d 914, certiorari denied 276 U.S. 591, 48 S.Ct. 213, 72 L.Ed. It is the general rule that by bringing an interpl......
  • 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