Peterson v. National Council of K. and L. of Security

• Decision Date: 06 April 1915
• Docket Number: No. 13966.,13966.
• Citation: 189 Mo. App. 662,175 S.W. 284
• Parties: PETERSON v. NATIONAL COUNCIL OF KNIGHTS AND LADIES OF SECURITY.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

175 S.W. 284

189 Mo. A. 662

PETERSON v. NATIONAL COUNCIL OF KNIGHTS AND LADIES OF SECURITY.

No. 13966.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.

April 6, 1915.

Rehearing Denied April 20, 1915.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Geo. C. Hitchcock, Judge.

Suit by Agues K. Peterson against the National Council of the Knights and Ladies of Security for reformation of a certificate and for judgment thereon. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

W. Paul Mobley, of St. Louis, for appellant. Campbell Allison, of St. Louis, for respondent.

ALLEN, J.

This is a suit in equity upon a certificate of insurance issued by the defendant, a mutual benefit association, for the reformation of the certificate, and praying for judgment thereon for the amount named therein, to wit, $1,000. In the certificate plaintiff was designated as a "dependent" of the insured. It is averred, in effect, that this designation was erroneously made, through mutual mistake of the parties; that plaintiff and the insured, however, were members of the same family, and plaintiff therefore entitled to have the certificate reformed and made to designate her as one of the class of persons entitled to receive benefits under the constitution and by-laws of defendant order which confined the beneficiaries to "the families, heirs, blood relatives, affianced husband or wife, or the persons dependent upon the member." The decree below was in plaintiff's favor on the issues joined, and judgment was rendered for her for the amount named in the certificate, with interest, and the defendant appealed.

One Thomas Ward was a member of defendant order, and prior to December, 1908, held a benefit certificate issued by defendant, payable to his wife. In November, 1908, while he was living with his wife at or near the corner of Fifteenth street and Chouteau avenue, in the city of St. Louis, the latter died, and during the following month Ward was taken into the home of plaintiff, Mrs. Peterson, who lived with her husband at 1102 Rutger street, in said city. It appears that plaintiff had known both Ward and his wife intimately for a great many years—from the time of plaintiff's childhood—had great, affection for both of them, saw much of them, and assisted them from time to time in various ways. The evidence is that at the time of his wife's death, and for a short period thereafter, Ward who was then about 50 years of age, lived in a single room which was scantily furnished, and that he was practically destitute. It appears that he had no known relatives, and no one to look to for assistance, but plaintiff, who had a sisterly regard and affection for him.

Plaintiff apparently lived in a comfortable house. Her husband was in business, and she conducted an artist's studio of some sort at the house in which they lived. She testified that Ward came into her home at her invitation. She said:

"I had known him so long as a brother, and I says, `Now, Tom, you are here all by yourself; * * * I want you to come over to my house to live;' and he thanked me, of course, and said he would be glad to; and he came over there."

Ward, having sold, for a small sum, such household goods as he possessed, moved his trunk and personal effects to plaintiff's home, and there continued to live as a member of the household for a period of nearly 2 years. The evidence is that during this time he worked only at certain intervals, for a few days at a time, paid no board, and none was expected of him. As to this plaintiff, in part, testified as follows, viz.:

"The Court: What was the understanding between you and Mr. Ward in reference to defraying the household expenses there? A. There wasn't anything at all; we had no talk about that at all; I just simply took him in. Q. He was your guest? A. No; he was just like a brother would be; like a member of the family. Q. I mean, did he defray any household expenses? A. No, sir.

"Mr. Allison: You didn't charge him any board, either? A. No, sir; I gave him money and bought his underwear and things, when I thought he needed them. Q. There was no contract of any kind by which he was to pay you any board? A. None whatever. Q. You took him in simply because he was an old lifetime friend? A. An old, lifetime friend. Q. And his wife had also been? A. Yes. Q. And it was simply a sisterly affection for him? A. Yes; that is it."

Plaintiff testified that some time after coming to her home Ward, in going through his trunk, came across the certificate formerly issued by defendant order, payable to his wife, and expressed the desire that the beneficiary therein be changed to plaintiff; that thereupon plaintiff telephoned one Johnson, "financier" of the local lodge, who came to her house, and to whom Ward, in her presence, explained the situation; that Johnson stated that it would be necessary to designate plaintiff as a "dependent," and, though plaintiff explained that she was not dependent upon Ward, Johnson said that it would not matter, and that it was proper to so designate plaintiff in the certificate. There is some little conflict in the testimony as to this matter, but not such as need be here dwelt upon. Shortly thereafter a new certificate was issued accordingly; and plaintiff paid all of the assessments payable thereon until Ward's death.

Ward both slept at plaintiff's home and ate his meals there until on or about October 7, 1910. It seems that he then procured employment (as he frequently had theretofore, but which he had never continued in but for a few days at a time) in a factory, and rented a room near the same, for convenience in getting to his work early. It is said that this was "just to last until he seen how he was going to like his position; if he was going to like it at all." He did not move his trunk or other personal effects from plaintiff's home, and continued to eat his evening meals there. This arrangement continued for but a brief time; for within a few days Ward became sick, and was taken to a hospital, where he remained until his death on March 19, 1911.

Though other questions are discussed in the briefs, it will only be necessary to determine whether plaintiff came within the class of persons entitled to receive benefits under the laws of the defendant order. If she fell within that class, it matters not that she was improperly designated in the certificate as a "dependent." We are of the opinion that facts of the case were such as to warrant the finding that she and the insured were members of the same family after the latter came into, and became a part of, the domestic circle of which she was a member, and that this family relation continued until the death of the insured.

The word "family" is one of more or less flexibility, susceptible of different meanings according to the connection in which it is used. It may be of narrow or broad meaning, as the intention of the parties using it, or of the law, may be made to appear. It is said that, "in its ordinary and primary sense, the term...