Love v. Clune

• Decision Date: 03 July 1897
• Citation: 24 Colo. 237,50 P. 34
• Parties: LOVE v. CLUNE.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

50 P. 34

24 Colo. 237

LOVE v. CLUNE.

Supreme Court of Colorado

July 3, 1897

Appeal from district court, Arapahoe county.

Action by Mary Margaret Love against Mary E. Clune. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

O. F Ingraham and Talbot, Denison & Wadley, for appellant.

Patterson Richardson & Hawkins, for appellee.

GODDARD J.

This action is brought to determine the right to $3,000, paid into court, being the proceeds of two policies of insurance upon the life of one John B. Blocker. On August 21, 1894, John B Blocker, a member of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers was killed in a railroad accident, while in the discharge of his duty. At the time of his death there were outstanding two policies of insurance upon his life for $1,500 each, issued by the Locomotive Engineers Mutual Life & Accident Insurance Association. The appellant and appellee both claiming the insurance, the association paid the money into court, to abide the result of this suit. The facts disclosed by the record which are necessary to be considered in determining which of these claimants is entitled to the fund in controversy are, in beief, as follows: In August, 1863, there was organized an association known as and called 'The Brotherhood of the Footboard.' In August, 1864, this association was reorganized, and its name changed to that of 'The Grand International Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers,' the objects and purposes of which organization, as set forth in its constitution, were to protect and assist the families of deceased members. The organization, which has its principal place of business, or home office, in the city of Cleveland, Ohio, consists of local lodges of locomotive engineers throughout the United States, upon which devolves the duty of protecting and assisting the familes of their deceased members. In 1867, for the evident purpose of relieving local lodges from this burden, an insurance branch was instituted in connection with, and under the control of, the brotherhood; and as one of the conditions of becoming a member of the brotherhood each applicant was required to take out and carry one or more policies of insurance in such association. The following by-laws were adopted for the guidance and control of the insurance association: 'Article 1. This association shall be designated 'The Locomotive Engineers Mutual Life Insurance Association,' its object being to aid and benefit the families of deceased members of the brotherhood in a simple and substantial manner.' 'Art. 20. When the death of a member of this association occurs, or injuries are received as specified in article 19, the secretary of the division shall transmit to the president and general secretary a report of such death or injury, signed by two members of the insurance association in good standing, together with his policy and the certificate of a physician or coroner, stating age, cause of death or injury. He shall also give the name and residence of the widow or heirs of the deceased to whom his insurance is payable. Upon receiving this information, the president and general secretary shall issue a notice through the journal to all the division secretaries, stating the age and date of admission, and date and cause of death, or injury sustained; also name of parties to whom his insurance is payable, and order an assessment,' etc. 'Art. 21. Any member failing to pay an assessment when ordered, as provided in the by-laws, or within the prescribed time, shall forfeit his membership, and shall forfeit all right and title he or his heirs may have to any benefit or claim in or against this association.' 'Art. 22. The treasurer of each division shall give each member a dated and numbered receipt for each assessment as it is paid, or give credit on the books, or both. Such receipt or book credit shall be sufficient evidence of the good standing of the member, and entitle him or his heirs to the full benefits.' 'Art. 23. In all cases where members of the association are unable to pay the assessments levied, and are carried, or the same paid, by the division, the number of brothers being so carried by any division shall be reported to the president and secretary, and they shall deduct from the money due the widow upon the death of the insured, and pay the subdivision the amount due them, said amount to be certified to by the C. E. and F. A. E. of each division.' On February 22, 1894, under and in pursuance of the laws of the state of Ohio, the officers of the brotherhood filed articles of incorporation for the insurance association, wherein the name of the association was changed to that of 'The Locomotive Engineers Mutual Life & Accident Insurance Association,' and wherein the purposes and objects of the association were stated in the language of the statute under which it was organized, as follows: 'Third. The purpose for which said corporation is formed is to transact the business of life and accident insurance on the assessment plan for the purpose of mutual protection and relief of its members, and for the payment of stipulated sums of money to the families, heirs, executors, or assigns of deceased members of said association.' On March 3, 1894, the incorporators adopted by-laws substantially like the old ones we have quoted, except section 1, which was changed to read as follows: 'This association shall be designated 'The Locomotive Engineers Mutual Life and Accident Insurance Association,' its object being to transact the business of life and accident insurance on the assessment plan, for the purpose of mutual protection and relief of its members, and for the payment of stipulated sums of money to the families, heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns of deceased members of said association.' On October 1, 1892, Blocker became a member of the brotherhood, and applied for and had issued two insurance policies, for $1,500 each, in which he designated Mary E. Clune, his mother, as the beneficiary, and delivered the same to her. After the incorporation of the association, and some time between March 1 and May 1, 1894, at his request, these certificates were returned to him, whereupon he procured them to be canceled, without her knowledge or consent, and had issued in lieu thereof two policies for the same amounts, wherein the appellant, Mary Margaret Love, was named as beneficiary, which certificates bore the same date as the original policies, and are in the following form:

'Organized December 3, 1867. (Incorporated March 1, 1894.) Locomotive Engineers Mutual Life and Accident Insurance Association. Certificate of Membership and Policy of Life Insurance. No. 5, 554. This certifies that John B. Blocker was admitted a member of this association this 1st day of October, 1892. A. B. Youngson, President. Harry C. Hays, General Secretary and Treasurer. Cleveland, Ohio, October 8, 1892.

'All payments or benefits that may accrue or become due to the heirs of the person insured by virtue of this policy will be payable to Mary Margaret Love, or his lawful heirs, which cannot exceed the amount the association shall be able to pay from one assessment. Any member of this association neglecting or refusing to pay any assessment when ordered, as provided in the by-laws, or being expelled one year from the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, shall forfeit all right and title to membership, and be debarred from further participation in this insurance, or benefits arising from the same. For the benefit of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers.'

During his lifetime Blocker contributed to the support of his mother, who is also his sole surviving heir at law. She predicates her right to the fund in controversy--First, on the ground that the delivery to and acceptance by her of the policies in 1892 gave her a vested interest in them, which could not be devested without her consent; second, that under the constitution and by-laws of the association it is authorized to insure the lives of its members only for the benefit of the families and heirs of such members; and the designation of appellant as beneficiary was inoperative since she belonged to neither class; and defendant, as sole heir of deceased, and also a member of his family, is entitled to the fund. The appellant controverts both of ...