Supreme Lodge v. Hine
| Decision Date | 20 July 1909 |
| Citation | 82 Conn. 315,73 A. 791 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | SUPREME LODGE, NEW ENGLAND ORDER OF PROTECTION v. HINE et al. |
Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Joel H. Reed, Judge.
Interpleader by the Supreme Lodge, New England Order of Protection, against Charles F. Hine, Mary A. nines, and others, to determine the person entitled to death benefits under a certificate issued to James H. Hines. Judgment for Mary A. Hines, and Charles F. Hine appeals. Affirmed.
Seymour C. Loomis and Ernest C. Simpson, for appellant.
Richard H. Tyner, for appellee.
The plaintiff is a fraternal beneficiary society located in the commonwealth of Massachusetts. James H. Hines of New Haven, now dead, was a member of the society. It issued its certificate for death benefits payable in the event of his death to his beneficiaries. The amount was $2,000. It admits its willingness and readiness to pay this sum to such person, or persons, as the court shall direct. We have to consider, therefore, only the rights of the claimants to the fund as between themselves.
On August 2, 1895, the plaintiff, in compliance with an application made by said Hines, issued a certificate to him numbered 26.031, certifying that he was a member of the order, and entitled to participate in the relief and benefit fund to the amount of $2,000, and stating that said sum should at his death be paid to "Mary A. Hines, wife, Charles F. Hine, son-in-law." On the 19th day of October, 1000, Hines surrendered this certificate, and by indorsement thereon requested that a new certificate be issued to him in lieu thereof, for the same amount, payable in case of death to "Charles P. Hine, son-in-law." In compliance therewith the plaintiff issued to him the certificate now in question, numbered 44,909, stating therein that the amount, $2,000, "was at his death to be paid to Charles F. Hine as son-in-law." This certificate was issued at Boston on the 19th day of October, 1900. James H. Hines died on the 2d day of January, 1908. According to the laws of the lodge and the laws of the state of Massachusetts the amount named in the certificate became payable at the death of the member. Said Charles F. Hine, who is one of the present claimants, was married to Margaret L. Hines, a daughter of said James H. Hines, prior to the issuance of either of the certificates mentioned above, and three children were born of said marriage prior to the death of James H. Hines, and still survive. On October 18, 1907, said Charles F. Hine and Margaret L. Hine, in an action brought by the latter, were divorced, and the custody of the three children was granted to her. Two of the children are now living with, and are, and since their birth have been, supported by their father. Neither he nor his former wife have since married. Mary A. Hines, the successful claimant in the court below, is the widow of James H. Hines. These are the only defendants now claiming the fund. The remaining defendants are the children of said James H. and Mary A. Hines. They have assigned any rights they may have in the fund in controversy to their mother, Mary A. Hines, and make no claim to it.
The application of Hines for membership, and the certificate issued to him by the plaintiff, constituted a contract between him and the company. The plaintiff was a Massachusetts corporation, and the certificate was issued in Boston. But Hines was a member of the plaintiff order, and was bound by the laws of that state so far as relates to his contractual relation with the order. This is true, although, as appears to have been the case, the certificate was delivered in New Haven. The contract, therefore, is to be construed in accordance with the laws of that state and the charter and general laws of the corporation. It is provided in section 6, c. 119, of the Revised Laws of Massachusetts of 1902, that death benefits of fraternal benefit societies shall be payable only to the husband, wife, betrothed, child by legal adoption, parent by legal adoption, or relatives of, or persons dependent upon, the person named in the certificate. One of the objects of the plaintiff order as provided in its charter is to establish a relief and benefit fund from which, upon the death of a beneficial member, "a sum not exceeding $5,000 shall be paid to such member or members of his or her family, person or persons dependent or related to him or her as he or she may have directed to be paid as is provided by general laws." And section 1, art. 1, of its constitution declares it to be one of the objects of the order to create such a fund, from which a sum not exceeding $3,000 shall be paid to the "husband, wife, affianced husband, affianced wife, relatives of or persons dependent upon such member." The corporation was thus authorized by the statute to establish a relief and benefit fund to be paid to certain classes of persons only, and its constitution declares that the fund is to be raised for the purpose of paying benefits to the classes of persons so fixed by the statute. Beneficial societies cannot create funds for the benefit of persons outside the classes mentioned in the statute, and no one outside of those classes can be a beneficiary. American...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cornelius v. Benevolent Protective Order of Elks
...to and membership in a fraternal organization is a contractual relationship under Connecticut law. See, e. g., N. E. O. P. v. Hine, 82 Conn. 315, 317, 73 A. 791 (1909); Supreme Council of the Royal Arcanum v. Green, 237 U.S. 531, 35 S.Ct. 724, 59 L.Ed. 1089 (1915). He argues that since the ......
-
Clark v. Security Benefit Assn., 35276.
...Rechow v. Bankers Life Co., 335 Mo. 668, 73 S.W. (2d) 794; Wall v. Bankers Life Co., 208 Iowa, 1053, 223 N.W. 257; Supreme Lodge, N.E.O.P. v. Hines, 82 Conn. 315, 73 Atl. 791; Supreme Colony, U.O.P.F. v. Towne, 87 Conn. 644, 89 Atl. 264; Palmer v. Welch, 132 Ill. 141, 23 N.E. 412; Grimme v.......
-
Robertson v. Security Benefit Assn.
...v. Barber, 245 U.S. 146, 38 Sup. Ct. 54, 62 L. Ed. 208; Wall v. Bankers Life Co., 208 Iowa, 1053, 223 N.W. 257; Supreme Lodge, N.E.O.P. v. Hines, 82 Conn. 315, 73 Atl. 791; Supreme Colony, U.O.P.F. v. Towne, 87 Conn. 644, 89 Atl. 264; Palmer v. Welch, 132 Ill. 141, 23 N.E. 412; Grimme v. Gr......
-
Baker v. Sovereign Camp, W. O. W.
... ... are not in point with this case on the record made by ... defendant herein. Haner v. Grand Lodge, A. O. U. W., ... 168 N.W. 189; Trapp v. W. O. W., 168 N.W. 191; ... Garretson v. W. O. W., 243 ... 694; Van De Water v. Travelers, 77 F.2d ... 333; Wertheimer v. Assn., 64 F.2d 436; Supreme ... Council v. Galery, 278 F. 502; Parker v ... Parker, 82 F.2d 576; Chicago & Alton Ry. Co. v ... ...