Supreme Council Amer. Legion of Honor v. Smith

Citation45 N.J.E. 466,17 A. 770
PartiesSUPREME COUNCIL AMER. LEGION OF HONOR v. SMITH et al.
Decision Date21 May 1889
CourtNew Jersey Court of Chancery

(Syllabus by the Court.)

On hearing pursuant to a decree that the defendants interplead and settle their right, in this court, to the fund brought into court by the complainant.

William B. Guild, for Hannah A. Smith. Chandler W. Riker, for Thomas F. Smith.

VAN FLEET, V. C. The complainant is a corporation organized under statutes of Massachusetts, authorizing the formation of corporations to raise a fund "for the purpose of assisting the widows, orphans, or other persons dependent upon deceased members." Assistance is extended to persons of the classes named by giving such persons as become members of the corporation the right to appoint or designate which of them shall take, on his death, the sum payable on the death of a member. When the complainant was organized as a corporation the only persons who could be appointed as beneficiaries of a member were his widow, his children, or other persons dependent upon him. By a statute passed in 1882 another class was added, namely, relatives of a deceased member; so that, after the statute of 1882 took effect, it was within the power of corporations like the complainant, formed under the laws of Massachusetts, to raise a fund "for the purpose of assisting widows, orphans, or other relatives of deceased members, or persons dependent upon deceased members." Supreme Council, etc., v. Perry, 140 Mass. 591, 5 N. E. Rep. 634; Massachusetts Foresters v. Callahan, 146 Mass. 392, 16 N E. Rep. 14. M. Henry Smith became a member of the complainant corporation in March, 1884. By the certificate of membership issued to him the complainant bound itself to pay out of its benefit fund, on satisfactory proof of his death, and on the surrender of the certificate, to his wife, Hannah A. Smith, a sum not exceeding $5,000, provided he was in good standing in the order at the time of his death, and provided, also, that the certificate had not been surrendered and another issued in its place in accordance with the laws of the corporation. The proofs show that Smith became a member of the complainant corporation at the request of his wife, under an arrangement by which she made a will in his favor, and he, in return, obtained the certificate of membership for her benefit; and also that she paid his initiation fee, and all, or nearly all, of the moneys which were subsequently paid to preserve his membership. The certificate was delivered to his wife soon after it was obtained, and she has had possession of it ever since. Neither at the time when Smith became a member, nor during his membership, did the constitution or by-laws of the complainant corporation give a member power to appoint any person but a member of his family, or a dependent on him, as his beneficiary. The constitution, in stating the object of the corporation, says that it is to establish a benefit fund, from which there shall be paid, on the death of a member, a sum not exceeding $5,000, to the family, orphans, or dependents, as the member may have directed. The by-laws defining the power of members provide—First, that an applicant for membership shall enter on his application the name of the member of his family, or of those dependent on him, to whom he desires his benefit paid, and the name of such person shall be entered in the benefit certificate, subject to such future change, among his dependents, as he may thereafter direct; second, that a member may at any time, when in good standing, surrender his benefit certificate, and have a new one issued, payable to such beneficiary dependent upon him as he may direct; and, third, that no act of any member, done for the purpose of changing his beneficiary, shall entitle the new beneficiary to any benefit, unless such act shall be in strict accordance with the laws of the corporation, nor until such act has been ratified and approved by the corporation. Another by-law provides that on proof of the death of a member an order shall be drawn by the secretary of the corporation on its treasurer in favor of the person named in the benefit certificate, and delivered to such person on the surrender of the certificate. Smith and his wife were divorced from bed and board on the 12th day of April, 1888, by the decree of this court, at the suit of the wife, for extreme cruelty, and he was ordered to pay her alimony. During the latter part of April, or early in May, 1888, Smith asked his wife to surrender to him the certificate issued by the complainant. She refused to do so, stating that, as she had furnished all the money paid on the the certificate, she considered that she was the person to whom the money mentioned in the certificate ought to be paid in case of his death. On the 21st of June, 1888, Smith made a written application to the complainant to change his beneficiary from his wife to his brother, Thomas F. Smith, stating that he was unable to surrender his certificate because the beneficiary named in it refused to give it up for cancellation, but he made his application to do all he could to effect a change in his beneficiary. The complainant, on the 16th of July, 1888, notified Smith that it would not issue a new certificate, payable to his brother Thomas, stating that under the circumstances it would be necessary that the old certificate should be surrendered before a new one could be issued. Smith died on the 21st day of July, 1888. His widow made proof of his death, and demanded payment of the sum which became payable by his death. Thomas F. Smith made a like demand, and the complainant then filed the bill in this case, and paid the sum in dispute into court. A decree that the defendants interplead and settle, in this court, their right to the fund in question, by proceeding to hearing on the answers by them respectively filed to complainant's bill, has been made by consent.

The question to be decided is, which of the defendants, Hannah A. Smith, or Thomas F. Smith, is entitled to the money in court? Hannah is the widow of M. Henry Smith, deceased. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • Rodieck v. Rodieck
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • February 13, 1969
    ...that, at common law, divorce A mensa et thoro had no effect on property rights of the parties, citing Supreme Council American Legion of Honor v. Smith, 45 N.J.Eq. 466, 17 A. 770 (1889). In Rudin, the New Jersey court of Equity 'A divorce from bed and board authorizes the parties to live in......
  • Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen v. Ginther
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • August 31, 1926
    ...1 A. L. R. 971; 29 Cyc. 130; Dean v. Dean, 156 N.W. 135; Stemler v. Stemler, 141 N.W. 780; Stoningham v. Dillon, 69 P. 1020; Supreme Council v. Smith, 17 A. 770. A intention to change is insufficient; insurer has the right to rely upon compliance with its rules; 1 Bacon L. & A. Ins. 404; Gr......
  • St. Louis Police Relief Association v. Tierney
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • January 30, 1906
    ...43 Mo. 353 at 353-376; Holland (Guardian) v. Taylor et al., 111 Ind. 121, 12 N.E. 116; Sup. Council, etc., v. Smith, 45 N.J.Eq. 466; 17 A. 770; Blair v. Perpetual Ins. 10 Mo. 559; Bank of Louisville v. Young, 37 Mo. 398; Dairy Co. v. Mooney, 41 Mo.App. 665; Hosack v. College of Physicians, ......
  • The Masonic Benevolent Association v. Bunch
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 28, 1892
    ...to know the laws. Legion of Honor v. Perry, 140 Mass. 580; Ben. Ass'n v. Hoyt, 46 Mich. 473; Supreme Council v. Smith, 45 N.J.Eq. 466; 17 A. 770; Knights of Honor Nairn, 60 Mich. 44. (6) In any way that the contract is viewed Lewis W. Bunch had under it the right to change the beneficiary a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT