Tepper v. Supreme Council of Royal Arcanum
Decision Date | 21 December 1899 |
Citation | 69 N.J.E. 321,45 A. 111 |
Parties | TEPPER v. SUPREME COUNCIL OF ROYAL ARCANUM et al. |
Court | New Jersey Court of Chancery |
Bill by Charles Frederick Tepper against the Supreme Council of the Royal Arcanum and others to reform a benefit certificate issued by defendant company. Decree for complainant.
Heard upon pleadings and proofs in open court and the written arguments of counsel. The suit is in the nature of an interpleader. The holder of the fund in dispute is the defendant the Supreme Council of the Royal Arcanum; the contestants are the complainant, Charles F. Tepper, on the one side, and his five half-brothers and sisters, Anna Worth (formerly Plondrick), Antoni Sieburg, Wilhelmina Ranges, August Zuber, and Wilhelm Zuber, on the other side. The nature of the contest will be best understood by a statement of the facts:
In 1864, Mrs. ——Zuber was the widow, with five children, of one Joseph Zuber, and in that year married William Tepper, and bore him the complainant, Charles Frederick Tepper. The children of the former marriage (the oldest of whom was born in 1853, and the youngest in 1860) lived with Mr. and Mrs. Tepper, and formed a part of their family, going to school until they were 14 years old or thereabouts, and after that working out, and assisting to support the family; but previous to the year 1885 all had been married, and had left their parents' home. In the year 1885, William Tepper made an application in writing to the Royal Arcanum, Hoboken Council, No. 99, for a full-rate membership in that council, which application was in these words: The persons therein named as his children were the five children of his wife by her former marriage, and * * *"the complainant. Pursuant to that application, a benefit certificate was issued to him, dated at Boston, Mass., the 8th of July, 1885, as follows: etc. Mrs. Tepper predeceased her husband, and he died in 1898. At the time of his death the certificate was in the possession of the husband of one of the stepdaughters, but was produced at the hearing.
The Royal Arcanum was organized in Massachusetts on the 5th of November, 1877, under the provisions of an act of the legislature of that state dated the 9th of May, 1877, which provides that such organizations "may, for the purpose of assisting the widows, orphans or other dependents of deceased members, provide in their by-laws for the payment by each member of a fixed sum, to be held by such association, until the death of a member occurs, then to be forthwith paid to the person or persons entitled thereto, and such fund so held shall not be liable to attachment by trustee or other process; and associations may be formed under said act for the purpose of rendering assistance to the persons and in the manner above specified." The second section of the act provides that the general laws relating to life insurance companies shall not apply. By a supplement, passed in 1882, it is provided that: "A corporation organized for any purpose mentioned in section two may, for the purpose of assisting the widows, orphans or other relatives of deceased members, or any person dependent upon deceased members, provide in its by-laws for the payment by each member of a fixed sum, to be held by such association until the death of a member occurs, and then to be forthwith paid to the person or persons entitled thereto," etc. The Royal Arcanum was organized in November, 1877, shortly after the passage of the act first above cited, and the certificate of organization given by the secretary of the commonwealth recited one of its objects to be "assisting the widows and orphans of deceased members, establishing a fund for the relief of sick and distressed members, and one for a widows' and orphans' benefit fund." There was no distinct proof given as to the precise language used in the first constitution and by-laws of the association, but in 1884—two years after the act of 1882—it adopted an amended constitution and by-laws. The constitution then adopted declares that one of its objects is "to establish a widows' and orphans' benefit fund, from which, on the satisfactory evidence of the death of a member of the order, who has complied with all its lawful requirements, a sum not exceeding three thousand dollars shall be paid to his family, or those dependent on him, as he may direct." And the third by-law provides as follows:
In 1891 the constitution and by-laws were again amended, stating the object of the widows' and orphans' fund, as follows:
Constitution, art. 5: "To establish a widows' and orphans' benefit fund, from which, on the satisfactory evidence of the death of a member of the order who has complied with all its lawful requirements, a sum not exceeding three thousand dollars shall be paid to the wife, children, relatives of, or persons dependent upon such member, as limited and described in the laws of said order relating to benefit certificates, as he may direct in accordance with said laws."
And in the general by-laws adopted at that time (chapter 2), as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Clark v. Security Ben. Ass'n
... ... 35276 Supreme Court of Missouri November 16, 1938 ... 18, 7 S.Ct. 614, 27 L.Ed. 636; Supreme ... Council Royal Arcanum v. Green, 237 U.S. 531, 35 S.Ct ... 724 ... Columbus, 188 Mass. 22, 73 N.E. 850; Tepper v ... Supreme Council, R. A., 59 N.J.Eq. 321, 45 A. 111, ... ...
-
Robertson v. Security Ben. Ass'n
... ... Security Benefit Association, Plaintiff in Error Supreme Court of Missouri April 1, 1938 ... ... 287, ... 39 So. 751; Scow v. Supreme Council, 223 Ill. 32, 79 ... N.E. 42; Steen v. W. W. A., 296 ... U.S. 662, 35 S.Ct. 692; Supreme Council Royal Arcanum v ... Green, 237 U.S. 531, 35 S.Ct. 724; Sanger ... Columbus, 188 Mass. 22, 73 N.E. 850; Tepper v ... Supreme Council, R. A., 59 N.J.Eq. 321, 45 A. 111, ... ...
-
Modern Woodmen of America v. Lottie Headle
... ... LOTTIE HEADLE ET AL Supreme Court of Vermont May 9, 1914 ... Marsh v. Supreme Council , 149 Mass. 512. 21 ... N.E. 1070, 4 L.R.A. 382; Barton ... of H. v. Adams , 68 N.H. 236, 44 A. 380; ... Tepper v. Royal Arcanum , 59 N.J.Eq. 321, 45 ... A. 111; ... ...
-
Middlesex County Welfare Bd. v. Motolinsky
...his security, etc. Tepper v. Supreme Council of Royal Arcanum, 59 N.J.Eq. 321, 45 A. 111, reversed on other grounds 61 N.J.Eq. 638, 47 A. 460, 88 Am.St.Rep. 449; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Mangravite, supra; Prudential Insurance Co. v. Gleim, 131 N.J.Eq. 215, 24 A.2d 511; Couch, Cycloped......