Dieterich v. The Modern Woodmen of America
| Decision Date | 04 December 1911 |
| Citation | 142 S.W. 460,161 Mo.App. 97 |
| Parties | ELIZABETH DIETERICH, Appellant, v. THE MODERN WOODMEN OF AMERICA, Defendant; HENRY M. DIETERICH et al., Interpleaders, Respondents |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Motion to Modify Judgment Overruled, January 8, 1912.
Appeal from Lawrence Circuit Court.--Hon. Carr McNatt, Judge.
REVERSED AND REMANDED (with directions).
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Oscar B. Elam for appellant.
(1) The contract at all times contemplated that the person occupying the status of wife of Martin Dieterich should any such person survive him, should take the benefits. And none of the interpleaders bore that relation or occupied that status. Order of Railway Conductors v. Koster, 55 Mo.App 196. (2) Martin Dieterich is conclusively presumed to have known the by-laws of the association. Harvey v. Grand Lodge, 50 Mo.App. 472; Coleman v. Knights of Honor, 18 Mo.App. 194; Grand Lodge v. Elsner, 26 Mo.App. 108; Burke v. Grand Lodge, 136 Mo.App 450. The same rule applies too to alterations in the by-laws. 29 Cyc. 78. (3) The contract of indemnity in a beneficiary association is testamentary in character and speaks for the first time upon the death of the member and as of the date of his death. Order of Railway Conductors v. Koster, 55 Mo.App. 193; Expressman's Aid Society v. Lewis, 9 Mo.App. 412; National Association v. Kirgin, 28 Mo.App. 83. (4) Even had there been no provision in the contract making the contract subject to such changes as should be made by changing the by-laws the contract would have been subject to changes in the by-laws just the same. Schrick v. Building Co., 34 Mo. 423; Ellerbe v Faust, 119 Mo. 653; State ex rel. v. Grand Lodge, 70 Mo.App. 467; Allen v. Life Association, 8 Mo.App. 55. (5) Deceased expressly agreed to become bound not only by the laws in force at the time he became a member of the order, but also by those which might thereafter be enacted by the order. Grand Lodge v. Burnh, 80 A. 160; Gilmore v. Knights of Columbus, 77 Conn. 58, 107 Am. St. Rep. 17; Couglin v. Knights of Columbus, 79 Conn. 218, 64 A. 223; Pain v. Societi St. Jean Baptiste, 172 Mass. 319, 52 N.E. 502, 70 Am. St. Rep. 287; State ex rel. v. Grand Lodge, 70 Mo.App. 456. (6) From the very nature of the defendant society, it had the inherent power to make the changes that it did make in its by-laws in 1901 and 1908. Schrich v. Building Co., 34 Mo. 422; Allen v. Life Association, 8 Mo.App. 55; Lloyd v. Modern Woodmen, 113 Mo.App. 19. (9) In the contract in suit the status of the wife of the member is the main, if not the sole inducement to the insurance. Railway Conductors v. Koster, 55 Mo.App. 194.
T. D. Steele and J. T. Burgess for respondents.
(1) The application for membership by Martin Dieterich to the society of the Modern Woodmen of America and for the indemnity in case of death while a member in good standing and directing that his wife, Francis Dieterich, should be named as his beneficiary and the benefit certificate issued to him thereon on the 26th day of April 1898, in which certificate the society agreed to pay to Francis Dieterich, his wife, the sum of one thousand dollars if she should survive the said Martin Dieterich, and if not and no other beneficiary shall be named by him, then the society to pay the proceeds of said certificate to his legal heirs, constituted a contract between them, which could not be changed by either party without the consent of the other. State v. Society, 72 Mo. 146; Commonwealth v. Weatherbee, 105 Mass. 149; Morton v. Supreme Council, 100 Mo.App. 76; Lewine v. Supreme Lodge, 122 Mo.App. 546. (2) The change and amendment of the said by-laws of the society does not entitle the plaintiff to take the benefits due on said certificate as against the legal heirs of said Martin Dieterich, these respondents. Lewine v. Supreme Lodge, 122 Mo.App. 547; Hysinger v. Supreme Lodge, 42 Mo.App. 627; Grand Lodge v. Sater, 44 Mo.App. 445; Smith v. Supreme Lodge, 83 Mo.App. 512; Campbell v. Club, 100 Mo.App. 249; Sisson v. Supreme Court, 104 Mo.App. 54. (3) The agreement of Martin Dieterich in the application and also contained in the benefit certificate to abide by all the by-laws of the society, as the same now exist, or may be hereafter modified or enacted, only had reference to his actions and duties as a member of the society and as to his conduct as such member, but does not mean that the society may interfere with the essential purpose of the contract, namely the indemnity covenanted to be paid and to whom covenanted to be paid. Morton v. Supreme Council, 100 Mo.App. 76; Hysinger v. Supreme Lodge, 42 Mo.App. 628; Supreme Council v. Gatz, 112 F. 119; Wist v. Grand Lodge, 22 Ore. 271; Lewine v. Supreme Lodge, 122 Mo.App. 547.
The defendant, Modern Woodmen of America, is a fraternal beneficial association with an insurance feature incorporated under the laws of Illinois and authorized to do business in this state. Plaintiff brought suit against it to recover $ 1000, the amount of a benefit certificate issued by it to one Martin Dieterich, basing her right to the fund upon the fact that she was his wife at the time of his death. The defendant admitted its liability for the amount but alleged that the heirs of Martin Dieterich were also claiming the fund and asked to pay the money into court and that plaintiff and the heirs be required to interplead therefor. This was done, the money paid in and defendant discharged. On the trial as to the rights of plaintiff and the heirs the court found for the heirs and plaintiff has appealed to this court.
The determination of the question of who is entitled to this fund rests upon the proper construction of the contract between the association and the member and hinges upon the right of the association to change the by-laws of the association after the issuance of the certificate in question so as to bind the member, Martin Dieterich, thereby. The association from the very nature of its organization has the inherent right to change its by-laws. In doing so, however, it is subject to certain restrictions. The change must be reasonable, and in harmony with the general purposes of the organization, and must not interfere with the contract rights of its members. [Smith v. Supreme Lodge K. of P., 83 Mo.App. 512; Morton v. Supreme Council, 100 Mo.App. 76, 73 S.W. 259; Lewine v. Supreme Lodge K. of P., 122 Mo.App. 547, 99 S.W. 821; Campbell v. American Benefit Club, 100 Mo.App. 249, 73 S.W. 342; Sisson v. Supreme Court of Honor, 104 Mo.App. 54, 78 S.W. 297.]
It is conceded in this case that the application for membership, the by-laws of the association in existence at the time the benefit certificate was issued and the benefit certificate constitute the contract between the association and the member. The provision of these, as far as necessary to determine the question involved in this case, are in substance as follows: The benefit certificate provided that on the death of the member, Martin Dieterich, the fund should be paid to Frances Dieterich, his wife, and that in case of the death of any beneficiary prior to the death of the member and he should fail to designate another beneficiary, then the amount of the certificate should be paid to his heirs. The by-laws in force at the time the certificate was issued provided that in case there was a failure of beneficiary and the member failed to designate another in the manner therein provided then the benefit should be paid to the heirs of the member. The by-laws also prescribed the form of the certificate to be used and the certificate issued in this case followed the form prescribed in the by-laws. The application for membership signed by Martin Dieterich, the deceased member, containing the following: "Do you further understand that the laws of this society now in force or hereafter enacted enter into and become a part of every contract of indemnity by and between the members and the society and govern all rights thereunder?" Ans. "Yes." Also the following: "I direct that the benefit certificate which may be issued to me in pursuance of this application recite as beneficiaries the following named and to each the amount designated, the relationship to me I certify to be as stated, viz.:
$ 1000.00 to Francis Dieterich. State of Relationship.
Name. Wife.
Residence, Monett, State of Missouri.
Must be wife, child, heir, other blood relative or dependent."
We may note right here that the application names a beneficiary to be inserted in the certificate but says nothing about a substitute in case of the death of the beneficiary prior to the death of the member.
The benefit certificate in question was issued April 26, 1898. Francis Dieterich, the named beneficiary, died August 4, 1909. Martin Dieterich, the member, and plaintiff were married in May, 1910. Dieterich died July 16, 1910. The by-laws of defendant providing for a substitute beneficiary in case of the death of the named beneficiary prior to the death of the member were changed in 1901 and again in 1908 in both of which it was provided that in such a case the benefit should be first paid to the wife or widow and if no widow was left, then to other persons in the order therein named.
The question for our determination is whether the amendment to the by-laws made after this certificate was issued by which on failure of the named...
To continue reading
Request your trial