Catholic Knights of America v. Kuhn

• Decision Date: 13 February 1892
• Citation: 18 S.W. 385,91 Tenn. 214
• Parties: Catholic Knights of America v. Kuhn et al.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

18 S.W. 385

91 Tenn. 214

Catholic Knights of America v. Kuhn et al.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

February 13, 1892

Appeal from chancery court, Davidson county; Andrew Allison Chancellor.

Bill of interpleader by the Catholic Knights of America against C. B Kuhn and William Huppert. Judgment for Kuhn. Huppert appeals. Affirmed.

Caldwell J.

This is a bill of interpleader filed by the Catholic Knights of America, a mutual benefit association, against C. B. Kuhn and William Huppert, to have the court determine which of the two defendants is entitled to the proceeds of a $2,000 benefit certificate issued by complainant to Peter Huppert, deceased upon his life. At different times, during his membership in the association, Peter Huppert held two of its benefit certificates,-one issued April 18, 1882; the other, June 28, 1887. The first one was payable, on its face, to defendant William Huppert, a brother of the assured; but, after running about five years, it was voluntarily surrendered by Peter Huppert, and, at his instance, the second one was issued, in its stead, payable to the assured himself, as beneficiary. This second certificate the assured bequeathed to the other defendant, C. B. Kuhn, charged with certain debts and trusts mentioned in his will. After the death of Peter Huppert, each of the defendants claimed the $2,000. Thereupon this bill was filed, and the defendants became the active and adverse parties in the litigation. William Huppert, in his answer, averred that he took a vested interest in the first certificate, of which he could be deprived only by his consent, and that the attempted change in the beneficiary was illegal and void, because made without his consent. Kuhn, answering, insisted that the change was authorized by the law of the order, that it was regularly made, and that he was entitled, under the will, to receive the fund. The chancellor's decree was in favor of Kuhn, and Huppert appealed.

The constitution and by-laws of the order, so far as applicable entered into and formed parts of the contract with Peter Huppert. Those laws, in connection with the words of the certificate, constituted the contract of insurance, in its proper and legal sense. Bac. Ben. Soc. §§ 161, 184, 185. Though not stated in so many words, this rule of construction was recognized and applied by this court in Tennessee Lodge v. Ladd, 5 Lea, 720, 721. The language of the first certificate, with reference to the member's right to change beneficiaries, is as follows: "Said Peter Huppert shall have the right, during his membership in the order, to surrender this certificate and receive a new one; and may substitute another beneficiary or beneficiaries therein, if he so desires, by complying with the laws of the order upon this subject." "The laws of the order" then existing prescribed the mode of substitution, and authorized it to be made only "with the consent of the beneficiary indorsed" on the certificate surrendered. In this case it turns out, as a matter of fact, that William Huppert, the beneficiary in the first certificate, not only did not consent to the change in the manner prescribed, but he had no notice whatever that a change was contemplated, and never, in any way, assented to the issuance of the second certificate. Therefore it would seem, nothing else appearing, that he was not bound by the change; and that the second certificate was illegal and void, because issued without the requisite authority. But there was another law of the order which likewise formed an important part of the contract; and that...