State ex rel. Kane v. Knights of Father Matthew

• Decision Date: 05 March 1912
• Parties: STATE ex rel. WILLIAM KANE, Plaintiff in Error, v. KNIGHTS OF FATHER MATTHEW et al., Defendants in Error
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

144 S.W. 896

164 Mo.App. 361

STATE ex rel. WILLIAM KANE, Plaintiff in Error, v. KNIGHTS OF FATHER MATTHEW et al., Defendants in Error

Court of Appeals of Missouri, St. Louis

March 5, 1912

Error to St. Louis City Circuit Court.--Hon. Daniel D. Fisher Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Judgment affirmed.

Lee A Hall for plaintiff in error.

(1) Neither the member of these benefit associations working under the lodge system nor their beneficiaries have any vested interest in the fund or the certificate prior to the death of the member. Westerman v. Supreme Lodge, 196 Mo. 670; Wells v. Mutual Ben. Assn., 126 Mo. 630; Sullivan v. Knights of Father Matthew, 73 Mo.App 43; Masonic Ben. Assns. v. Bunch, 109 Mo 560. (2) Persons who are members of these orders working under a lodge system are entitled to designate persons included in any of the classes of persons designated by our statute (Sec. 7109) as beneficiary under their certificate. Legion of Honor v. Niedlet, 81 Mo.App. 598; Koerner v. Grand Lodge, 38 Mo.App. 543; Denis v. M. B. A., 119 Mo.App. 210. (3) And this without regard to whether or not the act of 1907 (section 1, Laws 1897, page 132, now section 7109, R. S. 1909) was or was not accepted by such fraternal order working under the lodge system, though organized under the fraternal laws of Missouri prior to the passage of said act. Legion of Honor v. Niedlet, 81 Mo.App. 598; Hertsberg v. Brotherhood, 110 Mo.App. 328; Koerner v. Grand Lodge, 38 Mo.App. 543; Baltzell v. M. W., 98 Mo.App. 153; Lloyd v. W. of W., 113 Mo.App. 19. (4) Respondent order is a fraternal order working under the lodge system. Smith v. Knights of Father Mathew, 36 Mo.App. 184. (5) Mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the issuance of a new certificate to relator payable to the beneficiary designated by him. Lysart v. O. S. Assn., 55 Mo.App. 538; State ex rel. Campbell v. Cramer, 96 Mo. 75; Lloyd v. W. O. W., 113 Mo.App. 19; Legion of Honor Niedlet, 81 Mo.App. 598.

O'Neill Ryan for defendant in error.

The respondent, although having the right to extend its beneficiary class to the full limit provided for by Section 7109, Revised Statutes 1909, and not having the right to go beyond that limit, is not obliged to so extend. The relator must designate as his beneficiary a person occupying a relation within the scope and purpose of the society. Westerman v. Supreme Lodge, 196 Mo. 670; Lloyd v. M. W. of A., 113 Mo.App. 19; Pauley v. M. W. of A., 113 Mo.App. 437; Dennis v. M. B. of A., 119 Mo.App. 210; Armstrong v. M. B. of A., 132 Mo.App. 171.

CAULFIELD, J. Reynolds, P. J., and Nortoni, J., concur.

OPINION

CAULFIELD, J.

Proceeding on writ of error. Error is assigned to the action of the trial court in denying a peremptory writ of mandamus compelling the respondents, a fraternal beneficiary association and its proper officers, to permit the relator, a member in good standing, to change the beneficiary named in his benefit certificate to one, who, though a blood relative within the meaning of the statute (R. S. 1909, Sec. 7109), is not a member of his family or dependent upon him within the meaning of the laws of the respondent association. Such laws contemplate that the assessment of its members shall be for the sole purpose of providing for the "family or the dependent" of deceased members, and that no one shall be named or substituted as beneficiary in any benefit certificate except one who is of the family of the member or dependent upon him. The statute and the laws of the association were as herein indicated, both at the time relator became a member of the association and at the time he sought to change his beneficiary.

Respondent contends that the relator had no right, contrary to the laws of the association, to change his beneficiary to one not a member of his family and not dependent on him, and therefore that it should not be compelled to permit such a change to be made. Relator contends that notwithstanding the laws of the association forbid, he had the right to change his beneficiary to a blood relative within the meaning of the statute because the statute is mandatory and governs and overrides the laws of the association in that respect. The statute, so far as it concerns this appeal, reads as follows:

Section 7109. Fraternal Beneficiary Association, What is--Government of--Benefit Fund--Benefits, to be Paid to Whom.--A fraternal beneficiary association is hereby declared to be a corporation, society or voluntary association, formed or organized and carried on for the sole benefit of its members and their beneficiaries, and not for profit. Each association shall have a lodge system, with ritualistic form of work, and representative form of government, and shall make provisions for the payment of benefits in case of death, and may make provisions for the payment of benefits in case of sickness, temporary or permanent physical disability either as the result of disease, accident or old age; Provided, the period in life at which payment of physical disability benefits on account of old age commences shall not be under seventy years, subject to their compliance with its constitution and laws. The fund from which the payment of such benefit shall be made, and the fund from which the expenses of such association shall be defrayed, shall be derived from assessments or dues collected from its members. Payments of death benefits shall be to the families, heirs, blood relatives, affianced husband or affianced wife of, or to persons dependent upon the member. Such association shall be governed...