The Modern Woodmen of America v. Comeaux

• Decision Date: 06 February 1909
• Docket Number: 15,839
• Citation: 79 Kan. 493,101 P. 1
• Parties: THE MODERN WOODMEN OF AMERICA v. ROBERT L. COMEAUX
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

101 P. 1

79 Kan. 493

THE MODERN WOODMEN OF AMERICA v. ROBERT L. COMEAUX

No. 15,839

Supreme Court of Kansas

February 6, 1909

Decided January, 1909.

Error from Brown district court; WILLIAM I. STUART, judge.

Judgment reversed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

1. FRATERNAL INSURANCE--Beneficiaries--"Dependent." D was an unmarried man, without living relatives. He held a benefit certificate for $ 1000 in the Modern Woodmen of America, of which order he was a member in good standing. He was sick and without a home. To secure a place where he could live and be cared for, he entered into an agreement with a neighbor who was keeping a hotel whereby it was agreed that the name of the hotel-keeper should be placed in the benefit certificate as beneficiary, and he should also have all the property then owned by D., in consideration of which D. during his lifetime was to have a home at the hotel as part of the hotel-keeper's family. In pursuance of this agreement the name of the hotel-keeper was inserted in the certificate as stipulated, being designated as a "dependent." D. made a will by which his property was bequeathed to the wife of the hotel-keeper, and he then went to the hotel to live, and remained there until his death, which occurred a few months afterward. Held, that the hotel-keeper was not a dependent upon D. within the meaning of the law relating to the fraternal associations, and had no valid claim against the order as a beneficiary.

2. FRATERNAL INSURANCE--Acceptance of Assessments -- Beneficiaries--Waiver. Where the name of a person who does not belong to the class which by the rules of the order and the statute regulating such associations is entitled to become a beneficiary is inserted in a benefit certificate, such person has no right to receive any part of the benefit fund, and the acceptance of assessments paid, after his name has been so inserted, will not confer such right.

Truman Plantz, and D. C. Tillotson, for plaintiff in error.

James Falloon, and John F. Kerrigan, for defendant in error.

OPINION

GRAVES, J.:

On March 6, 1907, Robert L. Comeaux commenced this action in the district court of Brown county to recover the sum of $ 1000 upon a benefit certificate issued by the Modern Woodmen of America to Carl W. David, in which the plaintiff was named as beneficiary. There was no blood-relationship or family tie existing between Carl W. David and the plaintiff. The beneficiary was designated in the certificate as a "dependent."

The defendant claims that it is not liable to the plaintiff for the reason that he does not sustain the relationship toward the deceased which entitles him to be a beneficiary. The law of the order upon this subject, being section 41 of the by-laws, reads:

"SEC. 41. Who may be beneficiaries. Benefit certificates shall be made payable to the wife, surviving children, or some other persons specifically named in said benefit certificate as beneficiary, who are related to the member as heir, blood-relative, or person dependent upon him, or member of his family, whom the applicant shall designate in his application; provided, however, that no payment shall be made upon any benefit certificate to any person who does not bear such relationship as wife, surviving child, heir, blood-relative, or person dependent upon or member of the family of the member at the time of his death."

The statute of Illinois under which the defendant was organized in part reads:

"Payments of death benefits shall only be paid to the families, heirs, blood-relations, affianced husband or affianced wife of, or to persons dependent upon, the member." (Hurd's Rev. Stat. Ill. [1908] p. 1265.)

The statute of this state upon this subject reads:

"The payment of death benefits of such an association shall be to the families, heirs, blood-relatives, affianced husband or affianced wife of, or to persons dependent upon, the member thereof." (Gen. Stat. 1901, § 3569.)

Carl W. David was an unmarried man, and at the time of his death had no relatives then known to be living. In November, 1890, he joined Morrill Camp No. 1500, Modern Woodmen of America, at Morrill, Brown county, Kansas, and received a benefit certificate in which his sister, Caroline Hesler, was named as beneficiary. In 1896 his sister died. In May, 1905, Carl W. David had the name of the beneficiary changed from Caroline Hesler to that of the plaintiff, Robert L. Comeaux. To accomplish this he returned the certificate which he then held and requested in writing that one be issued in which Robert L. Comeaux be named as beneficiary. Upon this request a new certificate was issued. The request reads:

"I, Carl W. David, the neighbor to whom this certificate was issued, do hereby cancel and surrender this certificate, and order that a new one shall be issued, and that the benefit shall be of the amount of $ 1000, and shall be made payable to Robert L. Comeaux, who bears relationship to myself of dependent."

The law of the order relating to the changing of beneficiaries reads:

"SEC. 43. Change of beneficiaries. If a member in good standing at any time desires a change in his beneficiary or beneficiaries and to obtain a new certificate, he shall pay to the camp clerk a fee of 50 cents. . . . Provided, further, that the new beneficiary or beneficiaries so named shall be within the description of beneficiaries so named in section 41 hereof. No change in the designation of the beneficiaries shall be of binding force unless made in compliance with this section."

About the time this certificate was issued Carl W. David was in ill health and without a home. For the purpose of securing a place to live where he would be cared for, he and the plaintiff agreed that he should give the plaintiff, who was then in the hotel business in the city of Morrill, the property then owned by him, and cause the benefit certificate to be reissued with the plaintiff's name inserted as beneficiary, and in consideration therefor the plaintiff agreed to furnish David a home in, and as a part of, the plaintiff's family. In pursuance of this arrangement David made a will whereby he devised all of his property to the plaintiff's wife, Addie M. Comeaux, and caused the certificate to be issued as stipulated. Thereafter he made his home in the family of the plaintiff until his death, which occurred in September, 1905. Addie M. Comeaux was appointed executrix of the will, and duly qualified and entered upon the discharge of her duties as such. The association refused to pay the certificate to the plaintiff, and he commenced this action to recover thereon.

The defendant places its defense solely upon the proposition that the plaintiff is, by law and the rules of the order, prohibited from becoming a beneficiary, and this is the only question presented.

In determining the meaning of the word "dependent," as used in the benefit certificates issued by fraternal...