Hechmer v. Gilligan
| Decision Date | 06 November 1886 |
| Citation | 28 W.Va. 750 |
| Parties | Hechmer, Treasurer Of The Supreme Council Catholic Knights Of America v. Gilligan, Guardian, Et Al. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Submitted June 15, 1886.
1. Where a mutual benefit association, which is incorporated, is liable to one of two or more claimants for a death-benefit the treasurer of such association can not file a bill of interpleader to have the defendants set up their respective claims, but such bill can be filed in such case only by the corporation itself. (p. 759.)
2. The object of a bill of interpleader is to protect a complainant standing in the situation of an innocent stakeholder, and where a recovery against him by one claimant of the fund might not protect him against a recovery by another claimant. (p. 759.)
3. Where a bill of interpleader was filed in the circuit court and demurrer thereto overruled, and $600.00 paid into the hands of the "receiver" of the court, and on appeal the demurrer to the bill was sustained, the Appellate Court on reversing the decree remanded the cause with instructions to order the money to be returned whence it came, and then to dismiss the bill with costs. (p. 760.)
Quaere.--Can a mutual benefit association, which has paid a portion of a death-benefit to two or more conflicting claimants afterwards file a bill of interpleader to settle the question, to whom the residue should be paid.
J. T McGraw for appellant.
Martin & Woods for appellees.
JOHNSON PRESIDENT:
John L. Hechmer, treasurer of the Supreme Council Catholic Knights of America, filed in the circuit court of Taylor county his bill of interpleader against the administrator and heirs of Patrick Hanley, deceased, and John J. Gilligan, guardian of the children of said Hanley. The bill set forth, that the plaintiff was the treasurer of said society, which society was a mutual benefit association chartered by the State of Kentucky, and doing business in the State of West Virginia; that on the 6th day of September, 1880, Patrick Hanley was admitted to membership in one of the
subordinate branches of said association; that after the time of his admission he expressly requested, that benefits accruing in the event of his death should be equally divided between his wife and children; that on the 31st day of March, 1882, said Hanley died, and his widow and heirs at law were entitled to receive from said society $2,000.00; that on the 15th day of September, 1882, the plaintiff on behalf of said society paid to John J. Gilligan, guardian, &c., $1,000.00, being $250.00 for each of the infant heirs and one-half of the said principal sum; that said guardian refused to accept said sum in full of the claims of his wards, insisting that under the stipulation contained in the certificate of membership of said Hanley the said wards and the widow were entitled to equal distribution, and that said wards ought to receive each $400.00; that on the same day plaintiff paid Bridget Hanley, the widow, $400.00, which she refused to accept in full discharge of the liability of said association to her, insisting that said $2,000.00 ought to be divided thus, $1,000.00 to her, and $1,000.00 to her four children; that $600.00 yet remains in plaintiff's hands; that he asked the leave of the said guardian to pay over the $600.00 to the widow, but he would not consent. He says, he has always been willing to pay the same to such person or persons, as may be legally entitled to receive it, and offered to pay the same into court. He says he does not collude with any of said parties, &c. He asks to be permitted to pay said $600.00 into court, &c. and that the defendants may interplead.
The defendant Gilligan, guardian, &c., demurred to the bill, first because the $600.00 was not paid into court; secondly, because the bill is filed by the treasurer and not by the corporation itself. The infants by guardian ad litem answered. The guardian Gilligan also answered; and in his answer among other things he says: "Patrick Hanley at the time of his admission as a member of said branch to-wit, on the 6th day of September, 1880, directed in accordance with the constitution and laws of said Council, that the benefits accruing to him as a member of said Council should be paid on his death to his 'wife Bridget,' and that a certificate was granted to him in accordance with his wish and directions, as respondent is informed and believes, and that
after the issuance of said certificate, to-wit, on the 20th day of March, 1881, the said Patrick Hanley by and with the consent of said Grafton Branch No. 2 changed the beneficiary named in said certificate from 'his wife,' and made the same payable to 'his wife and children equally,' and in accordance therewith had a second certificate issued by the officers of said Grafton Branch No. 2, which said certificate was delivered to said Patrick Hanley, and by him taken to his home and there delivered to his said wife, Bridget, the sole beneficiary named in said first above named certificate, and the same carefully preserved by her until after the death of said Patrick Hanley, when it was produced by her and delivered to a mutual friend, who delivered the same to the complainant, through whose courtesy it is now permitted to be filed herewith."
He states he was importuned to become guardian for said children, which trust he accepted and received said $1,000.00, under the assurance from complainant and Mr. Hanley, that there would be due from said fund to said children either the sum of $1,000.00, or $1,600.00; that the true object and intent of the said Supreme Council Catholic Knights of America is found in the second article of its Constitution, which among other things there enumerated is, "to establish a benefit fund, from which a sum not to exceed $2,000.00, shall be paid at the death of each member to his family, or to be disposed of as he may direct, &c.," which said benefit can be altered and changed at the option, instance and election of the said member, as he may desire, in accordance with the rules and regulations of said council. He "is informed and believes the amount of said benefit fund provided for by the constitution of said Supreme Council is the subject of testamentary devise by the member entitled thereto, and that said member can alter, change and amend any disposition made by him of said fund as often, and to the extent desired by him, subject alone to any reasonable and fair rule that may be enjoined upon him as such member by the laws of said council. Respondent now insists, that after the issuance of the said first above named certificate, the said Patrick Hanley had the right with the consent of the branch of the Supreme Council of which he was a member, to alter and
change the disposition of this fund so as to make his children equal sharers with his wife in the said fund, and that after so changing his disposition of said fund from his "wife" to his "wife and children" and the issuance of said second above named certificate in accordance with his wishes and desires, and having delivered the last named certificate to his said wife, the sole beneficiary in the first above named certificate, and she having accepted the same and kept it during the lifetime of her said husband, and produced it on his death as the proof of her interest in said benefit-fund, and having always claimed under the said last named certificate, she is estopped to deny by her own acts, that the second or last above named certificate is the true and proper one upon which payment should be made."
Bridget Hanley answered and relies on the certificate issued on the 6th of September, 1800, payable to her alone. She denies that said Patrick Hanley, when he became a member of said society or at any time thereafter expressly directed, that in the event of his death accrued benefits should be divided equally between his wife and children, for the reason that in the certificate of membership applied for and received by said Patrick Hanley on the 6th day of September, 1880, respondent is the sole beneficiary named therein; she files the certificate which is payable to her alone. She says that afterwards on the 21st day of March, 1881, as she is informed, another certificate of membership was illegally, irregularly and contrary to the constitution and by laws of the said The Supreme Council Catholic Knights of America, issued without respondent's knowledge or consent to said Patrick Hanley and erroneously dated March 21, 1880, for the sole purpose, as respondent firmly believes and charges, to defeat the right, which she had previously acquired under, the said certificate bearing date on the 6th day of September, 1880. "Copies of the original and amended constitution of The Supreme Council Catholic Knights of America are herewith filled as parts hereof marked eexhibits 'A and B,' respectively." She admits receiving $400.00, as set out in the bill, but denies having said to complainant that she claimed only one-half of the $2,000.00; for she has always insisted and still insists, that as the sole beneficiary named in
the certificate of September 6, 1880, she is legally entitled to receive the full benefit of $2,000.00. She charges that the said second certificate is void and of no effect whatever; that...
To continue reading
Request your trial