Adams v. Grand Lodge of the A. O. U. W.
Synopsis
Mutual Benefit Association—Rights of Beneficiaries—Interpleader —Equity.—Where a mutual benefit association is not an aggressive party, standing strictly upon its legal rights, but has paid money into court, in respect of which rival beneficiaries have interpleaded, the rights of the beneficiaries as between themselves must be determined upon principles of equity.
Id.—Litigation Over Fund in Court—Principles of Adjudication— Source of Title not Material.—Where a fund has been paid into court by a mutual benefit association, in respect of which the plaintiff and an intervenor both claimed title, their respective claims of ownership are to be litigated in the same way, and finally adjudicated and determined upon the same general principles as though the common source of title of the money came through a bequest or gift.
Id.—Change of Beneficiary—Trust—Death of Trustee.—Where the insured in a mutual benefit association had named his wife as the original beneficiary in the certificate of membership, and afterwards changed the certificate to the name of a member of a firm to which he was indebted in a large sum of money, who took in trust for the firm, with the knowledge and consent of the mutual benefit association, upon the death of the trustee prior to the death of the insured, the wife cannot claim the proceeds of the certificate as against the firm for whose benefit it was held by the deceased trustee.
Id.—Equities of Real Beneficiaries as Against Trustee.—In the eyes of a court of equity the firm for whose benefit the certificate was issued in the name of one of its members was the real beneficiary, and the death of the trustee could not affect the rights of the real beneficiary living at the death of the insured, and it is the duty of the court to protect such beneficiary.
Id.—Certificate Irregularly Issued—Waiver of Rules.—The fact that a certificate was irregularly issued to a beneficiary, by reason of noncompliance with the rules of the order, in reference to the application for a change of beneficiary, does not render the certificate invalid; but the issuance of the certificate upon the application was a waiver by the order of its rules.
Id.—Declaration of Trust—Administrator of Trustee—Denial of Trust — Evidence.— A declaration of trust made by a beneficiary, defining his relations with a firm of which he was a member as to the beneficiary certificate, is properly received in evidence as against the administrator of the estate of the deceased trustee, who has denied the trust relations.
Garotttte, J.
The plaintiff, as successor in interest of the firm of Adams, McNeill & Co., brought this action to recover the sum of two thousand dollars, due and payable upon a beneficiary certificate issued by a society known as the Ancient Order of United Workmen. The party insured was Joshua H. Smith, and the original beneficiary named in the certificate of membership was Caroline H. Smith, his wife, the present intervenor and appellant. Subsequently Smith requested the grand lodge to substitute one John McNeill as the beneficiary in the place and stead of his wife, Caroline. This [323]request was complied with, and said McNeill received a new certificate, made payable to himself upon the death of Smith. A few years thereafter McNeill died, and, in about a like period after McNeill’s death, Smith died. No new beneficiary was named in Smith’s certificate of insurance after the death of McNeill, and upon this ground the intervener and appellant, Mrs. Smith, representing the heirs and devisees of her late husband, appears in the action, claiming that the insured died without a named beneficiary, and that therefore the proceeds of the certificate belong to the heirs of the insured. The defendant, the grand lodge, appeared in the action by answer, and offered to pay the money to whomsoever the court might decree upon final judgment; while the defendant, Bronner, administrator of the estate of John McNeill, deceased, answered, but failed to appear at the trial.
Respondent Adams’ claims are fairly illustrated and dependent upon the following facts, which we quote from the findings made by the trial court, and which, in our opinion, are fully supported by'the evidence introduced at the trial. After finding that Smith was indebted to the firm of Adams, McNeill & Co., in a large sum of money, the findings further declare: .
“1. That the said beneficiary certificate, so issued to the said Joshua H. Smith, and so made payable to the said John McNeill, was intended by the said Smith and the said McNeill for the benefit of the said firm of Adams, McNeill & Co., and not otherwise, and that the said certificate was held by the said John McNeill in trust for the said firm of Adams, McNeill & Co., of which said firm the said McNeill was at said time a member, as heretofore found, and that the same was so held in trust by the said McNeill with a full knowledge and consent of defendant, the grand lodge of the ^.ncient Order of United Workmen of California.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)