Modern Woodmen of Am. v. Little

• Decision Date: 18 May 1901
• Citation: 86 N.W. 216,114 Iowa 109
• Parties: MODERN WOODMEN OF AMERICA v. LITTLE ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

114 Iowa 109

86 N.W. 216

MODERN WOODMEN OF AMERICA

v.LITTLE ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

May 18, 1901.

Appeal from district court, Blackhawk county; A. S. Blair, Judge.

This case was submitted upon an agreed statement of facts, substantially as follows: The plaintiff is a mutual benefit society on the assessment plan, with a head camp and local camps, one of which local camps, known as “No. 105,” was at McGregor, Iowa. W. E. Little held a certificate of membership in this organization, in which the defendants Mate Little, his wife, and Jennie M. Little, his sister, were named as the beneficiaries. On the evening of February 8, 1898, Mr. Little, then in full membership, after a long illness, died at Independence, Iowa. On the morning of February 8th, Mrs. Little wrote a letter to the secretary of camp No. 105, as follows: “Independence, Iowa, Feb. 8th. Mr. Henry Bell--Dear Sir: Mr. Little and I have been talking over business affairs, and he tells me he had his Woodmen insurance made so his sister, Jen, would get half in case of his death. He has since changed his mind, and wants it changed, and made payable to me, if I outlive him; if I die first, he wants his legal heirs to get his insurance. If you can and will, please fix it that way, and we will be much obliged to you. His policy is in the tin box we put in the vault at the bank. Frank Gilman knows about it, and if you need it he can get it for you. Mr. Little is feeling quite poorly, but we still hope his new Dr. may bring him out. We are trying not to leave anything undone. Mrs. M. E. Little.” At the bottom of this letter the following postscript was added: “To Na-bor-bell this is in accordance to my desire and instruction. Respt., W. E. Little.” This letter was not received by the secretary until after Mr. Little's death, and was returned, without any action thereon, to Mrs. Little on February 13th, as requested by her in the letter of February 9, 1898. Proofs of death were furnished, but as Mrs. Little claimed the entire proceeds, and Jennie M. Little claimed one-half thereof, the plaintiff, admitting its liability to some person, brought the money and the defendants into court, and asked that their rights be determined between them. The defendants filed cross petitions, claiming as already stated, and by consent one half the money was paid to Mrs. Little, the other half held to abide the result of this litigation, and the plaintiff was discharged from further liability. The court below rendered judgment in favor of Mrs. Mate Little for the full amount. Jennie M. Little appeals. Reversed.Mullan & Pickett, for appellant.

J. T. Sullivan, for appellee.

GIVEN, C. J.

In addition to the foregoing, it is agreed that the by-laws of the plaintiff contain a provision as follows: “Sec. 43. Change of Beneficiaries. If a member in good standing at any time desires a change in the name of his beneficiary or beneficiaries, he shall pay the camp clerk a fee of fifty cents, and deliver to him his benefit certificate, with the surrender clause on the back thereof duly filled out and executed by him, designating therein the change desired in the name of the beneficiary or beneficiaries. The execution of such surrender clause by the neighbor shall be in the presence of and attested by his camp clerk: provided, however, that, if the member be so situated that he cannot execute the said surrender in the presence of the clerk of his camp, the signature of the member thereto may be attested by the jurat or acknowledgment of any person authorized by law to administer oaths and take acknowledgments. The local clerk shall forward said certificate, with said surrender clause indorsed thereon, and one-half of said fee of fifty cents, to the head clerk, who shall thereupon issue a new benefit certificate, payable to the beneficiary or beneficiaries named in said surrender clause: provided, further, that the new beneficiary or beneficiaries so named shall be within the description of beneficiaries contained in section 42 thereof. No change in the designation of the beneficiaries shall be of binding force, unless made in compliance with this section.” No question is made but that this by-law became a part of the contract. Appellant contends that this mode of changing beneficiaries is to the exclusion of every other; that the change can only be made in the manner provided; and as that was not done there was no change. Appellee contends that, as no rights vested in the beneficiary prior to the death of the insured, the insured had the right to change the beneficiary at any time that he desired; that the provisions of the by-laws as to the manner of changing beneficiaries was for the convenience of the company; and that the company could waive said provisions. Appellee cites Bac. Ben. Soc. §§ 308, 616, wherein it is said: “Although the rule is settled that change of beneficiary must be made in the manner prescribed by the laws of the society, with some exceptions, it is also now equally well settled that the society may waive compliance with the required formalities.” As to the exceptions, reference is made to section 310, which relates to the “jurisdiction of equity in aid of imperfect change of beneficiaries”; referring to Grand Lodge v. Child, 70 Mich. 163, 38 N. W. 1, and Grand Lodge v. Noll, 90 Mich. 37, 51 N. W. 268, 15 L. R. A. 350. By referring to those cases, it will be seen that the facts were different from this, and that the conclusion rested upon finding that the insurer had failed...