Brotherhood of R.R. Trainmen v. Adams

Decision Date05 March 1928
Citation5 S.W.2d 96,222 Mo.App. 689
PartiesBROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN, PLAINTIFF, v. RALPH L. ADAMS, APPELLANT, AUGUSTA D. ADAMS, RESPONDENT. [*]
CourtKansas Court of Appeals

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson County.--Hon. Nelson E Johnson, Judge.

REVERSED AND REMANDED (with directions).

Judgment reversed and remanded.

Ralph L. Adams, pro se and J. Francis O'Sullivan for appellant.

O. H Stevens and E. W. Ahmann of counsel.

John T Harding, David A. Murphy and R. C. Tucker for respondent.

FRANK, C. Williams, C., concurs. Trimble, P. J., absent.

OPINION

FRANK, C.

H. A. Adams, during his lifetime, was a member of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, and took out a benefit certificate in said order for $ 1875, payable at his death to his then wife, Minnie C. Adams, from whom he was later divorced, prior to his marriage to respondent, Augusta D. Adams. On June 21, 1912, at his request, and in compliance with the rules and by-laws of the brotherhood, the beneficiary in said benefit certificate was changed from Minnie C. Adams, his former wife, to Ralph Adams, his son. H. C. Adams died on January 28, 1926, and when proofs of death, accompanied by the benefit certificate were delivered to plaintiff brotherhood, there appeared on the back of said certificate the following,

"To the Grand Secretary and Treasurer of the Brotherhood of

Railroad Trainmen:

"I hereby revoke my direction as to the payment of the within certificate, and now request and direct said payment in the event of my death, to be made to Ralph L. Adams--son and Augusta D. Adams--wife, whose relation to me is that of son and wife and whose residence is Kansas City, Missouri, and Omaha, Nebraska.

"Witness my hand and seal this 1st day of July, 1922.

"(Seal) (Signed) H. A. ADAMS.

"Attest . . . Secretary.

"This certificate transferred on the Books of the Grand Lodge in accordance with the last above request and direction this--day of---, 19--.

"Witness my hand and seal of the Grand Lodge.

". . . Grand Sec'y and Treas."

Ralph Adams, son of deceased, claimed the entire proceeds of the policy. Augusta D. Adams, wife of decedent, claimed one-half thereof. Plaintiff, being willing to pay the proceeds of the policy to the rightful claimant, filed its petition in the nature of an interpleader, asking that claimants be ordered to interplead. The prayer of plaintiff's petition was granted, the proceeds of the policy was paid into court and plaintiff was discharged. Each of the claimants filed their separate interpleas, Ralph L. Adams, claiming the entire fund, and Augusta D. Adams, respondent claiming one-half thereof. Each of the claimants filed their separate motion for judgment on the pleadings.

The trial court after hearing said motions, overruled the motion of appellant Ralph Adams and sustained the motion of respondent, Augusta D. Adams, and rendered judgment giving to each claimant one-half of the proceeds of said policy, each claimant to pay one-half of the costs. Ralph Adams appealed.

The petition of plaintiff alleges all the facts heretofore stated. In addition the position shows that plaintiff is a voluntary, unincorporated association organized and existing under the laws of the State of Ohio, as a fraternal benefit association; that the constitution, laws and by-laws of plaintiff are a part of each benefit certificate issued to a member and the by-laws in force and applicable to the certificate in question are as follows:

"Upon the death of a member in good standing, the person or persons named in the beneficiary certificate of the deceased member, if living (except as otherwise provided in Sections 62 and 63 of this Constitution), shall be entitled to receive from the Beneficiary Fund of the Brotherhood the sum of the beneficiary certificate, held by him--"

"Sec. 62. Any member desiring to transfer his beneficiary certificate shall fill out the printed transfer on the certificate and sign his name thereto, and send the same to the General Secretary and Treasurer, through the secretary of a lodge of the Brotherhood. All transfers of beneficiary certificates shall be made upon the books of the Grand Lodge under the direction of the General Secretary and Treasurer, and any and all transfers made in any other manner shall be null and void. It shall be the duty of the General Secretary and Treasurer, immediately upon its receipt, to certify to such transfer in the form provided therefor in the certificate."

"Sec. 63. Each beneficiary certificate shall be in all respects deemed to be made under, and to be interpreted and construed in accordance with laws of the State in which the Grand Lodge has its headquarters."

The pleadings filed by Augusta D. Adams admits as true and adopts all facts alleged in plaintiff's petition except the by-laws of plaintiff. She then alleges that the act of plaintiff in paying the proceeds of said policy into court and disclaiming any interest therein was a waiver of all provisions of the by-laws relative to a change of beneficiary. She also alleges that, H. A. Adams, prior to his death intended to and did transfer one-half interest in said benefit certificate to her and that said transfer was endorsed on the back of said certificate as alleged in plaintiff's petition.

The pleadings of appellant Ralph L. Adams, admits as true and adopts all of the facts alleged in plaintiff's petition.

Respondent and appellant both plead decisions of the Ohio courts which we will notice later.

Appellant's first contention is that the benefit certificate in suit must be interpreted and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Ohio. This contention is bottomed on the premise that the pleadings show that the Grand Lodge issuing the certificate was domiciled in the State of Ohio, and the by-laws which are an integral part of the benefit certificate, provides that such certificate shall be in all respects deemed to be made under, and to be interpreted and construed in accordance with the laws of the State in which the Grand Lodge has its headquarters.

The first question presented by this contention is the right of the parties to contract that the laws of Ohio shall govern the interpretation and construction of the contract.

It is well settled law that parties to a contract may agree that such contract will be governed by the laws of a certain State or country, although the parties may not be domiciled there when the contract is made, and such contracts will be recognized and enforced in other States, although contrary rules of law may prevail in the State where the contract is called in question.

Speaking to a like question in Fidelity Loan Securities Co. v. Moore, 280 Mo. 315, 217 S.W. 286, the Supreme Court of this State, speaking through GRAVES, Judge, said,

"The parties had the right to contract, and to agree in such contract that the laws of Texas should govern their contract. This intention of the parties will be carried out by the courts, when they are called upon to enforce the contract. In other words, it is a vital part of the contract. The rule is thus stated in 9 Cyc., pages 665 and 666."

"Where the parties have expressly provided that the contract shall be governed by the law of a particular country this intention will as a rule be carried out by the courts. Thus where two persons make a contract in England, but by its very terms it is provided that it shall be governed by the laws of Scotland, the law of Scotland then becomes the proper law of the contract, and the law by which it is to be interpreted and its legality decided. Parties may substitute the laws of another place or country than that where the contract is entered into, both in relation to the legality and extent of the original obligation, and in relation to the respective rights of the parties, for a breach or violation of its terms. This is part of the jus gentium, and is enforced ex comitate, when the enforcement of the contract is sought in the courts of a country governed by a different rule than the local or adopted law of that contract."

The parties to the benefit certificate having contracted that the certificate should be interpreted and construed in accordance with the laws of Ohio, the contract and the acts of the parties thereunder must be interpreted in accordance with such laws.

The vital question in the case is whether or not the facts disclosed by the pleadings, when construed in the light of the laws of the State of Ohio, worked a change of beneficiary from Ralph L. Adams, the beneficiary named in the policy to Ralph L. Adams and Augusta D. Adams.

The by-law relative to a change of beneficiary or transfer of benefit certificate is as follows:

"Sec. 62. Any member desiring to transfer his beneficiary certificate shall fill out the printed transfer on the certificate and sign his name thereto, and send the same to the General Secretary and Treasurer, through the secretary of a lodge of the Brotherhood. All transfers of beneficiary certificates shall be made upon the books of the Grand Lodge under the direction of the General Secretary and Treasurer, and any and all transfers made in any other manner shall be null and void. It shall be the duty of the general secretary and Treasurer, immediately upon its receipt, to certify to such transfer in the form provided therefor in the certificate."

The rule in Ohio governing the change of beneficiary in a certificate issued by a beneficial association is stated in Charch v. Charch, Exr. et al., 57 Ohio St. 561, 49 N.E. 408, in the following language:

"When a member of a beneficial association, organized under section 3830, Revised Statutes, has caused the beneficial certificate, issued by the association upon his life,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Clark v. Grand Lodge of Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 17, 1931
    ......Co. v. Society of Railway Servants, A. C. 1901, 426 (English. case decided by the House of Lords); Brotherhood of. Railroad Trainmen v. Adams, 5 S.W.2d 96; Reid v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, 232 S.W. 185;. Murphy v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, 199 S.W. 730; Shadley v. ......
  • Menees v. Cowgill
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 12, 1949
    ...... 906; Tremain v. Dyott, 161 Mo.App. 217, 142 S.W. 760; Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Adams, 222. Mo.App. 689, 5 S.W.2d 96; Buck v. ......
  • Spicer v. New York Life Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • December 21, 1942
    ......Dodson, 345 Mo. 196, 205, 127. S.W.2d 652; Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Adams, 222 Mo.App. 689, 5 S.W.2d 96.] Since such ......
  • Losee v. Crawford
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kansas
    • March 5, 1928

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