Masonic Mutual Benefit Society of Indiana v. Burkhart

• Decision Date: 07 April 1887
• Docket Number: 12,780
• Citation: 11 N.E. 449,110 Ind. 194
• Parties: The Masonic Mutual Benefit Society of Indiana v. Burkhart
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

11 N.E. 449

110 Ind. 194

The Masonic Mutual Benefit Society of Indiana v. Burkhart

No. 12,780

Supreme Court of Indiana

April 7, 1887

Original Opinion of Jan. 26, 1887, Reported at: 110 Ind. 189.

Mitchell J. Zollars, J., dissents.

OPINION

Mitchell, J.

In support of the petition for a rehearing it is contended that the right of a member of a charitable association to change the beneficiary designated in his certificate of membership is derived from the constitution, or the rules and regulations, of the society of which he is a member, and that unless the right to change is reserved in the constitution or by-laws of the society, or in the certificate of membership, such right does not exist. Hence, it is argued, that because it does not appear in the complaint in this case, that such a right was so reserved, Mrs. Burkhart took a vested interest in the certificate of membership, which was not, and could not be, affected by the act of 1877, referred to in the opinion.

Our conclusion then was, and to that conclusion we still adhere, that unless the constitution or by-laws of the society, either expressly or by necessary implication, denied or restricted the privilege of the association and the member to agree upon a change in the name of the beneficiary, such right existed and could be exercised. The right to change the contract by the mutual agreement of the parties is not derived from the charter and by-laws, but may be either directly or impliedly limited thereby. Unless the power to change is thus limited, the beneficiary named in a certificate of membership has no vested interest in the fund prior to the death of the member. If, at the time the contract of membership involved in the case under consideration was made, the charter or by-laws were such as to prohibit a change in the beneficiary designated in the certificate, then Mrs. Burkhart took a vested interest, and the act of 1877 did not affect her rights, or authorize a change without her consent. If there was no prohibition against a change, in the constitution of the association, then the act referred to had no effect upon the transaction one way or the other.

That act declares that certificates of membership in charitable associations shall be regarded as contracts between the members and the association. Such certificates were contracts between the members and the society before precisely as they were after the act. The statute was...