State v. Knights of Father Matthew

• Decision Date: 05 March 1912
• Citation: 144 S.W. 896,164 Mo. App. 361
• Parties: STATE ex rel. KANE v. KNIGHTS OF FATHER MATTHEW et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

144 S.W. 896

164 Mo. A. 361

STATE ex rel. KANE v. KNIGHTS OF FATHER MATTHEW et al.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

March 5, 1912.

INSURANCE (§ 770)—MUTUAL BENEFIT SOCIETIES—BENEFICIARIES—STATUTES—"SHALL."

Rev. St. 1909, § 7109, provides that fraternal beneficiary associations, doing business on a lodge system, shall pay death benefits to the families, heirs, blood relatives, affianced husband or affianced wife of, or to persons dependent on, the member. Held, that the word "shall," as so used, was not intended in a mandatory sense, so as to require beneficial associations to include all the classes of beneficiaries specified; and hence such an association was authorized to limit the payment of its benefits to blood relatives and members of the family of the insured, and to persons dependent on him.

Error to St. Louis Circuit Court; Daniel D. Fisher, Judge.

Mandamus by the State, on the relation of William Kane, against the Knights of Father Matthew and others. From a judgment for respondents, relator brings error. Affirmed.

Lee A. Hall, for plaintiff in error. O'Neill Ryan and Paul Dillon, for defendants in error.

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, § 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:

"Sec. 7109. Fraternal Beneficiary Association, What is—Government of—Benefit Fund —Benefits, to me 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...