Supreme Council Catholic Knights of Am. v. Morrison

• Decision Date: 16 February 1889
• Citation: 17 A. 57,16 R.I. 468
• Parties: SUPREME COUNCIL CATHOLIC KNIGHTS OF AMERICA v. MORRISON et al.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

17 A. 57

16 R.I. 468

SUPREME COUNCIL CATHOLIC KNIGHTS OF AMERICA

v. MORRISON et al.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Feb. 16, 1889.

Bill of interpleader by the Supreme Council Catholic Knights of America against Alexander Morrison and others.

Edwin D. McGuinness and John Doran, for complainant. Hugh J. Carroll and Thomas J. McParlin, for executors of Patrick A. Cosgrove. James Tillinghast, for executors of Elizabeth A. Cosgrove.

STINESS, J. In January, 1883, Patrick A. Cosgrove was a member of a branch of the complainant corporation, which is in the nature of a mutual benefit or insurance association, and received a certificate of insurance on his life, payable after his death to his wife, Elizabeth, "or to the beneficiary or beneficiaries that he may hereafter have a certificate made in favor of, on surrender of this certificate." Four years later he surrendered the certificate, and took a new one in its place, by which the money was to be paid to the beneficiaries designated by his will. He died in the following Tune, 1887, and his wife died soon after. Each left a will, made after the change in the certificate, disposing of the fund, to which the executor of each will now lays claim. The certificates contained this stipulation: "Said Patrick A. Cosgrove shall have the right, during his membership in the order, to surrender this certificate, and receive a new one, and may substitute another beneficiary or beneficiaries therein, if he so desires, by complying with the laws of the order upon this subject. And it is expressly understood that this is a contract between the Supreme Council Catholic Knights of America and Patrick A. Cosgrove alone, and not a contract between said council and the beneficiaries herein named." Cosgrove handed the certificate to his wife, and frequently afterwards, before the change, remarked that he had given her the insurance, that he wanted to keep it up for her benefit, and that he thought it was all he would leave her. The paper was kept in her bureau drawer, and appears to have been taken for surrender without her knowledge. Shortly before his death, while both were sick, Mrs. Cosgrove stated to visitors, in her husband's presence, that he had given his insurance to her. After they had gone, he said something to his wife, to which she replied "Have you taken them without my knowledge? They were mine. You gave them to me." This probably had reference to the certificate, as she immediately sent for the envelope in which it had been kept, and found it empty.

The by-laws of the company, when the first certificate issued, provided for a change upon a surrender of the certificate, "with the consent of the beneficiary indorsed thereon;" but, before the second issued, the bylaws were amended by omitting the consent of the beneficiary. It is claimed by the executors of the widow that, as the existing by-law when the certificate issued prohibited any change without her consent, she took an interest in the certificate, like an interest in an ordinary life policy, which could only be extinguished with her consent. We think there is a wide difference between a certificate of this kind and an ordinary life policy, payable to a wife. In the latter, the terms of the contract divest the husband of all interest or ownership in it, and vest it at once in the wife, who may keep it in force by payment of premiums. In the certificates, it is stipulated that the beneficiary is not a party to the contract, and may be changed; and the insurance...