McLennan v. McLennan
| Decision Date | 06 November 1925 |
| Docket Number | Civil 2341 |
| Parties | MARY McLENNAN, Appellant, v. ELSIE PEARL McLENNAN, Appellee |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Navajo. J. E. Crosby, Judge. Affirmed.
Messrs Ferguson & Axline, for Appellant.
Mr. C B Wilson, for Appellee.
On the nineteenth day of December, 1910, the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, a fraternal benefit association organized under the laws of Ohio, issued a benefit certificate to Robert A McLennan, hereinafter called the insured. Mary McLennan, the mother of the insured, hereinafter called appellant, was named as beneficairy under the certificate. Under its terms the constitution, rules and regulations of the Brotherhood became a part thereof. Section 62 of the constitution reads as follows:
On June 1st, insured revoked his directions as to the beneficiary and directed the payment to be made to his wife, Elsie Pearl McLennan, hereinafter called appellee, and on July 2, 1920, the change of beneficiaries was duly noted on the records of the society. The request for change and its record were made in strict accordance with section 62, supra, and no attempt at further change was made until May 1st, 1921. On this latter date the insured either shot himself or was shot by some other person, the true facts apparently never being established. After the shooting he was taken to the Santa Fe Hospital in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and while on the train on his way there he executed the following document:
[Signed] R. A. McLENNAN.
The insured, after reaching Albuquerque, was transferred to the Santa Fe Hospital in Los Angeles, California, reaching there the 4th of May. Appellee accompanied him at his request on both of these trips.
On receipt of the document, above quoted, the secretary of Winslow Lodge, No. 477, of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, of which local insured was a member, forwarded it to the home office of the Brotherhood in Ohio. It was returned to the forwarder in due course by the secretary of the Grand Lodge, with a letter stating that the transfer was not lawful, and that the Grand Lodge would not accept it, and requesting the local secretary to get the original certificate and fill out the blank thereon in proper shape, and send it to the Grand Lodge, so that the transfer could be made in the proper manner. At the time of the alleged transfer on May 1st, the certificate was not in the possession of the insured, but was forwarded to him some time prior to June 5th and from that time until his death was in his possession.
On receipt of the letter from the Grand Lodge, the secretary of the local lodge wrote several letters to the insured, instructing him to send in the certificate with the transfer properly indorsed thereon, because the Grand Lodge would not accept the assignment or transfer of May 1st. Finally, about the 1st of June, the insured wrote the local secretary, asking for a blank on which he could make a request that the amount of the certificate be paid to him; it providing in the terms the insured himself might become the beneficiary on the ground of disability. He also wrote to a friend, stating that he was making these arrangements, so that he could use the money to go into business. This disability claim, however, was never completed, as insured died June 15th, 1921. Proof of death was made by both appellant and appellee, and the Brotherhood refused to pay either party, but filed its bill of interpleader and deposited the amount due under the certificate with the clerk of court.
The case was heard before the court without a jury, and judgment was entered, directing payment of the money to appellee,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Franklin Life Insurance Company v. Mast
...face of a policy provision which specifically set out another procedure which should be followed. An earlier case, McLennan v. McLennan, 29 Ariz. 191, 240 P. 339 (1925)6 had held that the method of changing beneficiaries set out in the policy contract was exclusive and must be followed stri......
-
Kane v. Union Mut. Life Ins. Co.
...change of beneficiaries and the rule to be applied where the insurer has waived such compliance, stating: "In McLennan v. McLennan, 29 Ariz. 191, 240 P. 339 (1925) this court stated that if an insurance policy contract provides the method of changing the name of the beneficiary from one per......
-
Doss v. Kalas
...agreement whether such a requirement must always be followed to effect a change of beneficiaries. 25 A.L.R.2d 999. In McLennan v. McLennan, 29 Ariz. 191, 240 P. 339 (1925) this court stated that if an insurance policy contract provides the method of changing the name of the beneficiary from......
-
Mackenzie v. Badillo (In re Meza)
...The insured may change his designation of beneficiary at will up until the time of his death. As stated by the Arizona Supreme Court in McLennan, “Under insurance certificates of this nature, the beneficiary has no vested interest in the certificate until the death of the insured member. Up......