White v. Brotherhood of Am. Yeomen

• Decision Date: 08 June 1904
• Parties: LILLIAN WHITE v. THE BROTHERHOOD OF AMERICAN YEOMEN, Defendant, FLORENCE H. EASTER, Intervener, Appellant
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

99 N.W. 1071

124 Iowa 293

LILLIAN WHITE v. THE BROTHERHOOD OF AMERICAN YEOMEN, Defendant, FLORENCE H. EASTER, Intervener, Appellant

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

June 8, 1904

Appeal from Jasper District Court.--HON. B. W. PRESTON, Judge.

THE defendant is a mutual benefit association organized under the laws of this State. A. J. White held a certificate of membership therein, by the terms of which the defendant undertook to pay to Florence H. White, who was then his wife the sum of $ 1,000 upon his death. Thereafter Florence H White was divorced from the member, A. J. White, and he married the appellee herein. He died without having changed his beneficiary, and Lillian White, his widow, brought this suit to recover on the certificate. Florence H. Easter formerly Florence H. White, who was named as the beneficiary intervened, claiming under the terms of the certificate. The intervener's demurrer to the petition was overruled, and appellee's demurrer to the petition of intervention was sustained. The intervener appeals.--Reversed.

Demurrers were wrongly sustained, and the judgment REVERSED.

E. E. Blanchard, for appellant.

A. F. Brown, for appellee.

OPINION

SHERWIN, J.

As will be noticed from the facts stated, the contest is between the widow, Lillian White, and the divorced wife, who is the beneficiary named in the certificate, and who was at the time it was issued the wife of A. J. White.

The undertaking of the contract was to pay the sum therein named to Florence H. White, related to the member as wife. Section 1824 of the Code provides as follows: "No fraternal association created or organized under the provisions of this chapter shall issue any certificate of membership to any person under the age of fifteen years, nor over the age of sixty-five years, nor unless the beneficiary under said certificate shall be the husband, wife, relation, legal representative, heir or legatee of such member." One of the expressed objects of the defendant association was to bestow substantial financial benefits "upon * * * the family, widow, heirs, blood relation, and such others as may be permitted by the laws of the State wherein this brotherhood shall operate," and its constitution and by-laws permitted a change of beneficiaries upon certain conditions. When the certificate was issued the appellant was the wife of A. J. White, and was one of the class of persons designated by the statute and by the laws of the order as a competent beneficiary. The statement that she was related to the member as wife was descriptive of her relation to him, and did not in itself provide for payment to his widow only. Overhiser's Adm'x v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 63 Ohio St. 77 (57 N.E. 965, 50 L.R.A. 552, 81 Am. St. Rep. 612); Courtois v. Grand Lodge A. O. U. W., 135 Cal. 552 (67 P. 970, 87 Am. St. Rep. 137).

The statute provides only for the relationship that shall exist when the certificate is issued, and does not in words, or by fair implication, limit payment to those only who occupy such relation at the time of death. It was the evident intent of the Legislature to prohibit anything in the nature of gambling contracts, and to so limit the beneficiaries as to accomplish such a result. Under the statute and under the laws of the order the member's legatee may be his beneficiary, and this without reference to who the legatee may be. A person may will his property as he pleases, and it is therefore evident that the statute was not intended to limit beneficiaries to those for whom the...