Norwegian Old People's Home Soc. v. Willson

• Citation: 52 N.E. 41,176 Ill. 94
• Parties: NORWEGIAN OLD PEOPLE'S HOME SOC. et al. v. WILLSON et al.
• Decision Date: 24 October 1898
• Court: Supreme Court of Illinois

176 Ill. 94

52 N.E. 41

NORWEGIAN OLD PEOPLE'S HOME SOC. et al.

v.WILLSON et al.¹

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 24, 1898.

Appeal from appellate court, First district.

Bill by Daisey E. Willson and another against the Norwegian Old People's Home Society and another. A decree for complainants was affirmed by the appellate court (73 Ill. App. 287), and defendants appeal. Affirmed.Chytraus & Deneen and Olaf E. Ray, for appellants.

Samuel J. Howe, for appellee Daisey Edna Willson.

CARTER, C. J.

This was a bill in chancery, filed by Daisey E. Willson in the circuit court of Cook county, by which she sought to set aside as fraudulent and void the cancellation of a benefit certificate issued to her father, Elef Danielson, by the Policemen's Benevolent Association of Chicago, in which she was named as beneficiary, and to have another certificate, in which the appellants were named as beneficiaries, issued in lieu of the former, canceled and annulled; also asking that the association be decreed to pay her the money due under the former certificate, and that it be enjoined from paying any money to appellants on account of such second certificate. The bill charged that the proper formalities had not been observed in making the surrender of the first certificate, and that the change in beneficiaries had been procured by undue means, and while her father was mentally incapable of transacting business. A cross bill was filed by appellants, in which they asked that the money be decreed to be paid to them. The association answered the cross bill, and alleged that appellants were incompetent to take as beneficiaries, that the certificate issued making them such was void, and that the proceeds should revert to the association. Appellee Willson, in her answer to the cross bill, set up the same matters alleged in her original bill, and alleged that appellants were incompetent to take as beneficiaries, and that, under the constitution and by-laws of the association and the laws of this state, the proceeds of the benefit certificate were payable to her. Issues were made on the original and cross bills, and the court found that the first certificate was properly surrendered, and the changes in the beneficiaries made with the full knowledge and consent of Elef Danielson, who was fully competent, but also found that the appellant the Norwegian Old People's Home Society was incompetent to take under the certificate and laws of the association, that P. J. Danielson was a member of the immediate family of his brother Elef, and decreed that the association pay one half of the proceeds of the benefit certificate to said P. J. Danielson, as the beneficiary appointed therein, and that the other half be paid to appellee Daisey E. Willson, as the only heir at law and next of kin of Elef Danielson, and a member of his family, within the meaning of the certificate and laws of the association. On appeal to the appellate court by appellants, the decree was affirmed, and they have further appealed to this court.

It is contended by appellants that the appellee Daisey E. Willson is not competent to take any benefit under the certificate and laws governing the association, and that, if it be held that the Norwegian Old People's Home Society is also incompetent to take, the whole fund should go to P. J. Danielson, while it is strongly urged that, the contract having been fully executed on the part of Elef Danielson, it is now too late to raise the question of the incompetency of the Norwegian Old People's Home Society as a beneficiary, and that only the association itself could raise any question in that regard. The whole question as to who may be made beneficiaries must be settled, in the first place, by reference to the certificate of incorporation of the Policemen's Benevolent Association. The object of the association is stated to be: ‘To create a fund and provide means for the relief of the distressed, injured, sick, or disabled members of the association and their immediate families.’ This object is repeated in almost the identical words in article 2 of the constitution of the association. Article 11 of this constitution is entitled ‘Payment of Beneficiary,’ and provides, among other things, as follows: ‘Sec. 3. When any beneficiary named in this certificate of any deceased member, by reason of death, operation of law or otherwise, is unable to take the beneficiary fund of such deceased member, then such beneficiary fund shall be payable to the heirs-at-law of such deceased member in accordance with the statutes of Illinois regarding descent.’

There can be no question that the Norwegian Old People's Home Society was incompetent to take under the terms of the certificate of incorporation of the association. It could not in any way be held to be a member of the deceased's immediate family, and only such persons were competent to take. It is no answer to say that the statute of the state under which the association was organized was broad enough to permit such society to take. The incorporators of the association chose to restrict the objects of its benevolence to the immediate family of the member, and the courts must construe the contract as they find it. Rockhold v. Benevolent Soc., 129 Ill. 440, 21 N. E. 794. This court said in Alexander v. Parker, 144 Ill. 355, on page 363, 33 N. E. 183: ‘Where the statute under which a benevolent corporation is organized, and its charter adopted in pursuance of such statute, designate certain classes of persons as those for whom a benefit fund is to be accumulated, a person not belonging to either or any of such classes is not entitled to take the fund. The corporation has no authority to create a fund for other persons than the classes specified in the law, nor can a member direct the fund to be paid to a person outside of such classes. Neith...