Supreme Court, Order of Patricians v. Davis

• Citation: 88 N.W. 874,129 Mich. 318
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan
• Decision Date: 28 January 1902
• Parties: SUPREME COURT, ORDER OF PATRICIANS, v. DAVIS et al.

88 N.W. 874

129 Mich. 318

SUPREME COURT, ORDER OF PATRICIANS, v. DAVIS et al.

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 28, 1902

Appeal from circuit court, Berrien county, in chancery; Orville W Coolidge, Judge.

Bill of interpleader by the Supreme Court, Order of Patricians against William D. Davis and Beulah Davis, an infant, by Fred Gay, her guardian. Decree for Beulah Davis. William D. Davis appeals. Affirmed.

W. J Barnard, for appellant.

Benjamin F. Heckert, for appellee.

HOOKER J.

The complainant, a fraternal organization, issued a certificate of membership to one Edith Davis. It provided for the payment of a benefit of $1,000 upon her death,--half to her husband and half to her daughter. After her death the complainant paid $500 to the daughter's guardian, and, as both guardian and the husband claimed the remainder, it filed this bill of interpleader, which both defendants answered admitting the controversy, and introduced testimony regarding their respective claims. The circuit judge sustained the claim of the daughter, and her stepfather has appealed.

The case turns upon an alleged change of beneficiary, the validity of which is denied on three grounds: (1) That the issue of the new certificate was not in conformity to the provision of complainant's articles of association and by-laws; (2) that it was not made at the request of Edith Davis; (3) that the original certificate was procured under a contract between Edith Davis and her husband that, if he would pay the expenses and assessments upon said certificate, he should have one-half of the benefit, and that his rights cannot be affected by a gift to the daughter of such share.

The laws of the order prescribe the method that shall be taken by the member to change the beneficiary, which he has a right to do. The restrictions as to method are matters of contract between himself and the society, over which the beneficiary has no control. Any arrangement between the member and the society by which the former clearly indicates his desire for a change, and indicates the new beneficiary, is sufficient if satisfactory to the society, and acted upon by it before the member's death. That it is a matter of contract between the parties is indicated by the decisions cited and quoted in the case of Grand Lodge v. Fisk (Mich.) 85 N.W. 875, following the rule discussed by Nib. Ben. Soc. p. 405 et seq. Where the method prescribed has not been...