Parker v. Parker
Decision Date | 13 March 1936 |
Docket Number | No. 1356.,1356. |
Citation | 82 F.2d 575 |
Parties | PARKER et al. v. PARKER. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
V. N. Stinson and H. P. Vories, both of Pueblo, Colo., for appellant Minnie P. Parker.
Charles E. Sabin and Clyde T. Davis, both of La Junta, Colo., for appellant Mayer's Funeral Home, Inc.
Samuel D. Menin and E. N. Freeman, both of Denver, Colo., for appellee.
Before PHILLIPS, McDERMOTT, and BRATTON, Circuit Judges.
On February 28, 1934, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, a fraternal beneficiary association, hereafter called the Brotherhood, issued its beneficiary certificate to George A. Parker, in the sum of $1,000.
In it, Maxine Parker, his wife, was named as beneficiary.
The certificate in part provided:
Section 11 of the constitution of the Brotherhood in effect at the times hereinafter referred to, in part, provides:
On October 11, 1934, George A. Parker, in order to change the beneficiary in such certificate to his mother, Minnie P. Parker, filled out the form attached to the policy for that purpose, executed and acknowledged it before a notary public and forwarded it by United States mail, postage duly prepaid, to the Brotherhood at its home office at Cleveland, Ohio.
On October 12, 1934, Parker died at La Junta, Colorado.
On October 16, 1934, the general secretary and treasurer of the society cancelled the original certificate and issued a new certificate in which Minnie P. Parker was named as beneficiary, and forwarded it to the secretary of its local lodge at Pueblo, Colorado. The local lodge having learned of Parker's death, refused to deliver the certificate.
Thereafter, Minnie P. Parker made an assignment of $233.50 of the proceeds of the certificate to Mayer's Funeral Home, to pay the funeral expenses of Parker.
The Brotherhood filed a bill of interpleader and paid $1,015 into court. Maxine Parker claimed under the original certificate. Minnie P. Parker and Mayer's Funeral Home, as her assignee, claimed under the second certificate. The court awarded the fund to Maxine Parker, and Minnie P. Parker and Mayer's Funeral Home have appealed.
The Brotherhood is an unincorporated voluntary association, operating pursuant to the provisions of Title 9, div. 3, subdiv. 1, chapter 4, Ohio Gen.Code 1934 (section 9462 et seq.), the Uniform Fraternal Benefit Society Law, with its principal office in Cleveland, Ohio.
Since the Brotherhood is operating under the laws of Ohio, has its home office in that state, and there issued the beneficiary certificate, we are of the opinion the construction placed upon its constitution by the courts of that state is controlling.1
The reasons for adopting as the criterion for determining the rights and liabilities of members in a fraternal benefit society, the construction placed upon its constitution and by-laws by the courts of the state in which it was created or in which it has its home office and under the laws of which it operates, were stated in Supreme Council of Royal Arcanum v. Green, 237 U.S. 531, 542, 35 S.Ct. 724, 727, 59 L.Ed. 1089, L.R.A.1916A, 771, as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Boland v. Love
...1907, 29 App.D.C. 312, 324, 9 L.R.A.,N.S., 1078, whether pleaded or not, Kaye v. May, 3 Cir., 1924, 296 F. 450, 453; Parker v. Parker, 10 Cir., 1936, 82 F.2d 575, 577. But lex loci delicti governs, Giddings v. Zellan, 1947, 82 U.S.App.D.C. 92, 160 F.2d 585, certiorari denied, 1947, 332 U.S.......
-
Clark v. Security Ben. Ass'n
... ... Glen, 131 U.S. 319; Sanger v ... Upton, 91 U.S. 58; Hancock Natl. Bank v ... Farnum, 176 U.S. 640, 20 S.Ct. 506, 44 L.Ed. 69; ... Parker v. Stoughton Mill Co., 91 Wis. 174; ... Modern Woodmen of America v. Mixer, 267 U.S. 544, 45 ... S.Ct. 389; Sov. Camp W. O. W. v. Shelton, 270 ... ...
-
In re Cuellar-Gomez
...judicial notice, without plea or proof."); Saffold v. McGraw-Edison Co., 566 F.2d 621, 623 (8th Cir. 1977) (same); Parker v. Parker, 82 F.2d 575, 577 (10th Cir. 1936) ...
-
Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Carlson, 2387.
...forum but also those of other states, Mather v. Stokely, 1 Cir., 218 F. 764; Brown v. Ford Motor Co., 10 Cir., 48 F.2d 732; Parker v. Parker, 10 Cir., 82 F.2d 575; Kaye v. May, 3 Cir., 296 F. 450, that means no more than that one relying upon a statute of a foreign state need not plead it. ......