Brotherhood of R.R. Trainmen v. Adams
Decision Date | 05 March 1928 |
Citation | 5 S.W.2d 96,222 Mo.App. 689 |
Parties | BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN, PLAINTIFF, v. RALPH L. ADAMS, APPELLANT, AUGUSTA D. ADAMS, RESPONDENT. [*] |
Court | Kansas 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.
Trimble, P. J., absent.
Railroad Trainmen:
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:
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.
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:
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-
Clark v. Grand Lodge of Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen
......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
...... 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.
......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