Carmichael v. Northwestern Mut. Ben. Ass'n
| Decision Date | 17 October 1883 |
| Parties | CARMICHAEL v. NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL BENEFIT ASS'N. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Comp.Laws c. 94, provides for the organization of mutual benefit associations, to secure "to the families or heirs of any member, upon his death, a certain sum of money." Held that the term "family" will cover a case where the insured and the beneficiary were an old man and a young woman who were not related, but had lived for many years in the same household, and had treated each other as father and daughter.
Damages cannot be assessed by the supreme court in a case at law, but must be found by the court below; and, if not so found, or if the finding settles no basis of fact which will fix the amount, the supreme court has no means for entering judgment.
Error to Wayne.
Keating & Dickerman, for plaintiff and appellant.
Ervin Palmer, for defendant.
The defendant, a corporation under chapter 94 of the Compiled Laws, issued to Frederick Wagner, on the twenty-sixth of November, 1879, a certificate of insurance on his life in the sum of $2,000, for the benefit of the plaintiff. May 9, 1881 Wagner died, and on the fourteenth of June the defendant's secretary paid the plaintiff $300 of the insurance. The payment was not authorized by the association. At the time of the death of Wagner the association had 3,472 members, and on the second day of August following it had 3,259 certificates in force. Soon after the payment of the $300, the case of Mutual Ben. Ass'n of Michigan v Hoyt, 46 Mich. 473, [S.C. 9 N.W. 497,] was decided in this court adversely to the claimant, and the defendant, assuming that the decision there was applicable to the claim of the plaintiff, refused to pay her, and she brought this action to obtain payment. The case was heard by the circuit judge without a jury, and he came to the conclusion that the contract was against public policy, and was not enforceable. He evidently regarded Hoyt's Case directly in point.
There was no relationship by either blood or marriage between Wagner and the plaintiff. She is, therefore, not an heir. Were they of the same "family," within the meaning of the statute? The case depends on this question. Unless they were, no recovery is possible. The facts are that they resided under the same roof, and as constituents of the same social and domestic circle, from her early youth until his death, in old age, and when she had reached the age of 36 years. He was never married, so far as appears, and had no other home, and there is no finding that any relatives remained to him. He regarded the plaintiff very much as a daughter, and she treated him with much of the care which that relation would naturally call out.
These are the conspicuous facts reported by the judge on this point. I forbear mentioning the changes in plaintiff's family. They do not alter the impression. Now...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peterson v. National Council of the Knights & Ladies of Security
... ... Knights & Ladies of Honor, 100 Mo. 36; Masonic Ben. v ... Bunch, 109 Mo. 560; 1 Bacon on Benefit Societies, ... Lister, 73 Mo.App. 99, 105; ... Masonic Ben. Assn. v. Bunch, 109 Mo. 560; ... Railway Conductors v. Koster, ... Carmichael v. Northwestern Mutual Benefit ... Association, 51 Mich ... ...
- League v. Shields
-
Shepherd v. Camp
...and cared for by him since childhood, although of no blood kin to the insured and never legally adopted by him (Carmichael v. Northwestern, etc, Ass'n, 51 Mich. 494, 16 N.W. 871). In the case before us there is no question that the plaintiff is the identical person named in the certificate ......
-
Rogers v. Kuhnreich
...in question and under the circumstances here disclosed. The word ‘family’ is one of great flexibility. In Carmichael v. N. W. Mut. Ben. Ass'n, 51 Mich. 494, 16 N. W. 871, it was said by Chief Justice Graves speaking for the court: ‘Now this word ‘family,’ contained in the statute, is an exp......