Majority
Headnote
Beneficial Associations—Beneficiaries—Qualification—Society’s Charter.The contest in this case is between two claimants to the proceeds of a benefit certificate issued by the defendant the Knights of Columbus on the 5th day of August, 1901, to one James J. Davin, who died on the 18th of June, 1904, leaving, him surviving, the plaintiff, his widow, and the defendant Patrick Davin, his father. The avails of the certificate were paid into court by the Knights of Columbus. It is what is known as a benefit certificate, and, after reciting that James J. Davin is a member of the Ave Maria Council No. 241 of the defendant society or organization, and that he had complied with the requirements of admission to membership in the insurance class of the Knights of Columbus, that corporate body “hereby promises and binds itself to pay to Patrick Davin, provided such person is the lawful beneficiary of said member at the time of his death, a sum not exceeding one thousand dollars, in accordance with and under the provisions of the laws of the order governing said payments, upon satisfactory evidence of the death of said member in the form and manner required by the laws of the order; provided, however, that said member at the time of his death is an insurance member of the order in good standing, and that this certificate shall not have been surrendered and another certificate issued.” At the time of the death of James J. Davin, the certificate was outstanding and unsurrendered, no change ever having been made of a named beneficiary, and James J. Davin was a member in good standing of the society, which was and is a fraternal benefit corporation or society, organized under the laws of the state of Connecticut. It had a charter, the provisions of which were in force at the time of the death of James J. Davin. Subdivision 1 of section 1 of that charter declares the object and purpose of the society as follows:
“Of rendering pecuniary aid to its members and beneficiaries of members, which said aid shall be exempt from attachment and execution while in possession of control of such corporation, members, or beneficiaries, which said beneficiaries shall be specified only in the following order, to wit: (a) To such person or persons of the immediate family of said member as by him designated. (b) To such person or persons, in default of such family, of the blood relatives of such member as by him designated, (c) In default of any dessignation by said member, or out of the order named, except by permission of the board of directors or their successors, for cause shown, then such aid shall be rendered by said corporation to such family or relatives who are heirs at law of such member, in the manner above arranged, upon their proof of being such family or such heirs at law."
When the certificate was issued to James J. Davin, he was unmarried and living with his father. At that time the father was a person “of the immediate family” of the member, and as such was designated by him as beneficiary, within the meaning of paragraph (a) of subdivi
The court said:
“We think the words susceptible of an interpretation which sets aside the designation ‘if out of the order named’ when applied to the member’s family as it is at the time of his death. The case of Knights of Columbus v. Rowe, 70 Conn. 545 , 40 Atl. 451 , is almost identical with this case, and it was there held, without any statement of the reason for this part of the decision, that the widow of the member was entitled to the benefit, instead of his father, who was designated as the beneficiary before the marriage.”
And the court added that:
“This construction of a statute of Connecticut by the Supreme Court of that state is entitled to great consideration, if it is not absolutely conclusive upon us.”
We think the two cases cited are clear authority in favor of the plaintiff’s contention in the present action, and we find nothing in the decisions of the courts of this state contrary to them. We are therefore of the opinion that judgment on the submission should be rendered in favor of the plaintiff, declaring that she is entitled to the proceeds of the certificate paid into court, with costs against the defendant Patrick Davin only.
All concur.