Leaf v. Leaf

• Decision Date: 24 October 1891
• Citation: 17 S.W. 354,92 Ky. 166
• Parties: Leaf et al. v. Leaf. [1]
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

17 S.W. 354

92 Ky. 166

Leaf et al. v. Leaf. ^[1]

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

October 24, 1891

Appeal from Louisville law and equity court.

"To be officially reported."

Bill of interpleader by the Supreme Lodge Knights of Honor of Missouri against Louisa Leaf, Reuben Leaf, and others, to determine who are entitled to payment of a benefit certificate. From a judgment in favor of Louisa Leaf, Reuben Leaf et al. appeal.

Pryor J.

This controversy is between Louisa Leaf, who was at one time the wife of Peter Leaf, and his children by a former wife Alexander, Reuben, and Miss Nellie Leaf, who are the appellants in this court. It originated as follows: Peter Leaf during his life was a member of the order known as the "Knights of Honor," and what is termed a "benefit" certificate for $2,000 was issued upon his life in March, 1881, and by his direction made payable to the appellee, Louisa Leaf, who was then his wife. In the year 1887, Peter Leaf obtained another benefit certificate, in lieu of the one payable to his wife, issued by the Supreme Lodge Knights of Honor of Missouri, and made that certificate payable to his son Alexander. In a few months thereafter the certificate making his son the beneficiary was surrendered and another one issued by the Supreme Lodge of Missouri, made payable to his son (the beneficiary in the second certificate) and his brother and sister, who were all children by his first wife. The appellee, Louisa Leaf retained the first certificate, and her husband, Peter Leaf, obtained the second certificate upon an affidavit made that his wife, Louisa, refused to surrender to him the first, that it might be canceled. Peter Leaf dying, the supreme lodge filed a bill of interpleader in the court below against Louisa Leaf, the holder of the original certificate, and the appellants, the holders of the last certificate, calling upon them to assert their several claims, and paying the $2,000, the benefit fund, into court, that the chancellor might order it paid to the parties entitled. The supreme lodge has therefore no interest in the litigation, only asking the chancellor to render such a judgment as is in accordance with the design of this benevolent corporation. Peter Leaf, the insured, had by the appellee three children, who were infants at his death and at the institution of this action. Some years after deceased joined the order he became improvident and addicted to the use of liquor, so much so that his wife, Louisa, was declared a feme sole, that she might manage and control the property, consisting of realty of the value of two or three thousand dollars, the title to which was in her, but the accumulation was doubtless the result of their joint efforts. He gave to his wife the benefit certificate as her property, and she held and claimed it as her separate estate. Not only so, but, when her husband had lost all interest in his family by reason of his dissipated habits, she took from the earnings of her daily labor a sufficient sum in every month, during the period of two or more years, to pay his assessments or dues, so as to prevent a forfeiture of the policy. After this, the wife, Louisa, by a proceeding in equity, procured a divorce from her husband, and was restored to all the rights of a single woman, and her children left to her care and keeping. She surrendered to her husband a moiety of the realty, the title being in her name, in settlement of their property rights under the judgment of divorce, and retained the benefit certificate as her property; and no assertion of claim was made to it by her husband, and no notice given her of any change in the beneficiary, either then or to be thereafter made by him. She had been paying the assessments to a member of the subordinate lodge in this state, and the second certificate was obtained upon an affidavit showing upon its face to the Missouri supreme lodge that she, Louisa, held the certificate, and refused to surrender it. The beneficiaries in the second and third benefit certificate were all of age when both certificates were issued, and not living with or dependent upon the father for protection or support.

It is insisted...