Supreme Council v. Priest

• Decision Date: 29 June 1881
• Citation: 46 Mich. 429,9 N.W. 481
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: SUPREME COUNCIL v. PRIEST.

9 N.W. 481

46 Mich. 429

SUPREME COUNCIL v. PRIEST.

Supreme Court of Michigan

June 29, 1881

A member of a benefit society was entitled upon his death to have the sum of $2,000 paid to the person or persons named by him and entered by his order in the society's "will book." He directed, and there was so entered, that $100 should be paid his daughter and $1,900 to his wife, reserving the right of changing beneficiaries or annulling the disposition. Subsequently he made a will revoking his former disposition, and providing that after payment of debts $500 should go to his wife, remainder to be equally divided among his children. Held, that the will was a valid disposition of the fund, although not entered in the society's will book, and payment should be made directly to the beneficiaries.

Appeal from superior court of Detroit.

Otto Kerchner, William Look, and Brennan & Donnelly, for complainant.

MARSTON C.J.

The record in this case is not as full, clear and distinct in some respects as we could wish it to be. We are unable to find anything in the act under which the complainant company was organized, or in the rules appearing in the record, which would take away from John Priest the right and power of disposing of this fund by last will and testament in the ordinary manner. While section 9 of the rules and regulations of the complainant provides that the fund on the death of a member shall be paid to the person or persons last named by the deceased, and entered by his orders on the will book of the company, yet this does not, nor did the will as entered upon the complainant's books, attempt to deprive Mr. Priest of the right to make some subsequent disposition of the fund differing from that therein made. Indeed in the will made upon the complainant's books full right was reserved to make a different disposition thereof. This was done by the second will, which does not, in our opinion, violate rule 9 of the complainant. And if it did we might not be prepared to hold the testator's disposition invalid because thereof.

Very clear and binding provisions must be shown to deprive a person of the right given him by the laws of the land to dispose of such a fund by his last will. In our opinion the provisions of this second will in so far as it names the persons and the amount to which each shall be entitled must govern. This being a beneficiary fund, does not become a part of the property or estate...