Masonic Mut. Ben. Ass'n v. Tolles

• Decision Date: 01 June 1889
• Citation: 40 A. 448,70 Conn. 537
• Parties: MASONIC MUT. BEN. ASS'N, v. TOLLES et al.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

40 A. 448

70 Conn. 537

MASONIC MUT. BEN. ASS'N,

v. TOLLES et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 1, 1889.

Appeal from superior court, New Haven county; Alberto T. Roraback, Judge.

Action of interpleader by the Masonic Mutual Benefit Association against Rhoda M. Tolles, Eulie M. Tolles, and others, and referred to a committee, by whom the facts were found and reported. The court accepted the report of the committee, and rendered judgment in favor of the claimant, William D. Gilbert, executor, from which Eulie M. Tolles, another claimant, appealed, for alleged errors in the rulings of the court. No error.

This was a bill of interpleader brought by the Masonic Mutual Benefit Association, showing that Daniel B. Tolles was a member in good standing of that association; that he died on the 28th day of February, 1890, and that thereupon the said association became liable to pay the sum of $2,000, according to the provisions of its laws, to his legal beneficiary; that Rhoda M. Tolles, widow of the said Daniel, and Eulie M. Tolles, a son, have each demanded the same sum from the plaintiff; and that it was ready and willing to pay the same to the party legally entitled thereto,— and praying that the parties interplead concerning their respective claims to said money, and that the court should decide to whom the same belonged, to the end that the plaintiff be discharged from all further liability in respect thereto. The court made an order that the parties interplead. The said Rhoda M. and Eulie M. then appeared and set forth their claims accordingly. Herbert D. Tolles made no appearance. The whole cause was referred to a committee, who made his report. The court accepted the same, found the facts therein to be true, and held that the plaintiff should pay the committee's fees, amounting to $——, and should pay the balance of said sum to said Rhoda M. Tolles. From this judgment Eulie M. Tolles appealed to this court. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion.

George P. Carroll, for appellant.

Edwin B. Gager, William H. Williams, and George C. Bryant, for appellee William D. Gilbert.

ANDREWS, C. J. (after stating the facts). After the report of the committee was filed in the superior court, Eulie M. Tolles moved to amend his statement of claim. The court denied this motion. In most cases the allowance of an amendment to pleadings is within the discretion of the court. Perhaps there is nothing in this case to take it out of the ordinary rule. We have, however, no occasion to decide, because it is admitted by counsel that this court may consider the case as though the averments of the claim were ample to admit in evidence all the facts in the committee's report. Daniel B. Tolles became an accepted member of the plaintiff association on the 11th day of February, 1878, and the plaintiff issued to him a certificate of membership; and thereupon the said association became liable to pay the sum of $2,000, according to the provisions of its laws, to his legal beneficiaries. In his application for such membership the said Daniel had designated, as the persons to whom the benefits were to be paid, his wife, the said Rhoda M. Tolles, and his two sons, Herbert D. Tolles and the said Eulie M. Tolles. The laws of the plaintiff provided that "a member may change the designation of the person to whom said sum shall be payable," by giving a notice of such change, in a prescribed way, to the secretary of the association, and that the sum named in the certificate should be paid to that person who at the time of the death of the member was his designated beneficiary according to their laws and rules. On the 27th day of April, 1895, the said Daniel M. Tolles did change the designation of his beneficiary to Rhoda M. Tolles alone, according to the rules and forms prescribed by the plaintiff, and gave the required notice thereof, and the board of directors accepted the same. If, then, regard is had only to the contract between the plaintiff and Daniel B. Tolles, the judgment of the superior court is correct, and the said Rhoda M. Tolles is entitled to the benefit money named in the certificate. Eulie M. Tolles, the appellant, however, insists that the judgment is erroneous, by reason of other matters, which, he says, ought to be considered. In his statement of his claims made in response to the order of interpleader he alleged, in paragraphs 8 and 9, that: "(8) Prior to January 1, 1894, and thereafter, the said Daniel B. Tolles became sick, despondent, and unable to work, and in consequence thereof lost interest in his membership in said association; and said membership was then in danger of lapsing, and the proceeds thereof were in danger of being lost to said beneficiaries. (9) Under these circumstances, and as a matter separate and distinct from the contract of the plaintiff with the said Daniel B. Tolles, both about January 1, 1894, and also before and after that time, said beneficiaries and the said Daniel B. Tolles mutually and severally agreed, in consideration of said beneficiaries paying the assessments and other money necessary to keep alive the membership of the said Daniel B. Tolles in said association, that said beneficial interest in the said $2,000 to be paid as aforesaid should belong to, and be the property of, the said three beneficiaries, for their equal benefit." The committee found that the matters alleged in said paragraphs were not true. He adds: "It was...