Great Camp Knights of the Modern Maccabees v. Deem

107 N.W. 447, 143 Mich. 652, 1906 Mich. LEXIS 707
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedApril 30, 1906
DocketDocket Nos. 57, 58
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 107 N.W. 447 (Great Camp Knights of the Modern Maccabees v. Deem) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Great Camp Knights of the Modern Maccabees v. Deem, 107 N.W. 447, 143 Mich. 652, 1906 Mich. LEXIS 707 (Mich. 1906).

Opinion

Blair, J.

Charles H. Phillips became insured in the Maccabees in October, 1898, in the sum of $2,000. His wife, Alice J. Phillips, was named as the beneficiary. [653]*653On the 16th day of October, 1902, he revoked the designation of his wife as beneficiary and designated his sister, Ella E. Deem, in her stead, and a new certificate was thereupon issued in favor of Mrs. Deem. He also became insured in the Modern Woodmen of America for the sum of $2,000, in favor of his wife, in April, 1895. This certificate was lost and a new one issued in favor of his wife, June 2,1902. On October 16, 1902, he designated his sister, Mrs. Deem, as beneficiary under this policy instead of his wife.

After his death, his widow, Alice J. Phillips, presented a petition to both the Maccabees and the Woodmen, stating that for more than two years previous to his death he had been afflicted with a disease which had the effect of weakening and rendering his mind unsound as well as his body, and that for nine months previous to his death his mind had become greatly enfeebled and unsound, gradually growing worse; that he had become subject to aberrations, and, among other delusions, he had become strongly impressed with the erroneous idea and delusion that he was in danger of suffering for want of the necessaries of life and from poverty; that during the said nine months, his mother and his sisters, Mrs. Deem, Mrs. Johnson, Mrs. Aldrich, and his brother Lewis, who, Mrs. Phillips claims, had been unfriendly to her, had fostered these erroneous ideas and delusions, and she charged that Mrs. Deem, in particular, had fraudulently contrived to procure herself to be substituted as the beneficiary in said certificates, and that substitution was attempted to be made for the purpose of securing the payment of an alleged pre-existing indebtedness of the said Charles H. Phillips, as well as to secure payment of moneys proposed to be lent to him thereafter. The disease which is supposed to have thus affected him was Bright’s disease.

The Maccabees and Woodmen each filed bills of inter-pleader against Mrs. Phillips and Mrs. Deem, and paid the amount of insurance into court, and decrees were made that their bills were well filed, and the defendants' [654]*654were directed to interplead, which they did. The testimony in the case was taken in open court, and a large number of witnesses were examined, pro and con, and the court made a decree, without filing any opinion, sustaining the change of beneficiaries, and awarding the fund to Mrs. Deem. Mrs. Phillips appealed.

The great bulk of the testimony in this case was directed towards showing the mental condition of Charles H. Phillips and his relations towards his wife during the 20 years of their married life. It would be impossible within the limits of this opinion to discuss the testimony, and no useful purpose would be served thereby. Suffice it to say, that I have arrived at the conclusion that the mind of Mr. Phillips was impaired to some extent, but not to such an extent as to invalidate his acts in changing the beneficiaries in the insurance certificates in question here. Neither, in my opinion, would this court be justified in finding from this record that Mr. Phillips was actuated by any insane delusion concerning his wife. I am satisfied, however, that it was not the intention of Mr. Phillips to make an absolute gift of the certificates to his sister, Mrs. Deem, but that he transferred them to her as a security for pre-existing indebtedness and for moneys and support to be thereafter advanced and furnished. Appellees say in their brief concerning Mr. Phillips’ financial condition at this time:

“ He was then recovering from a serious and expensive illness. He was then out of a job. His doctor bills were unpaid. His finances were so low that he was taking money from his collection of old coins to repair his daughter’s shoes. His home was mortgaged. His salary as alderman of $1 per day depended wholly upon his ability as a campaigner in his then condition to be re-elected in April. He knew that campaign expenses were heavy, and had to. be met to secure an election. His tenement house was rented for $11 per month, out of which he must pay taxes on both properties. He must pay insurance, interest, water tax, and repairs. His lodge dues and life insurance must be paid, and his wife and child must be fed and clothed. He had been seriously incon[655]*655wenienced and vexed because his lodge had refused to pay his sick benefits, and had finally forced him to compro.mise by discounting his claim.”

Mrs. Deem testified that in February, 1902:

“I said, ‘Charley, I would not allow myself to worry about that; I should borrow some money on my home or on my insurance, and settle up the little bills, if there are any bothering you.’ * * * I made this suggestion because he did not see how he was going to get along without working six months. Of course, for a while they ■could get along, but he said, ‘I can’t meet my bills six months lying idle.’ I made the suggestion to quiet his mind, and show him how he could pull through. I could see it would be pretty hard to get along six months without working, and I was willing to help him, only I wanted security for it. That is all, so long as he had it. If he hadn’t anything to give me, I should have helped him, and so told him. I never knew that these policies could not be used as collateral until here in court. I have often heard of people loaning money on their insurance, and did not know that it applied to any particular kind of insurance. That didn’t mean to assign me the insurance, but to give me an interest in it to pay back the obligation, simply as security. At this time I gave him no money. * # *
‘ ‘ During his sickness in September we had about the same conversation about his insurance that we had before. The only thing that I remember differently was my saying, ‘ Either Lew or I would let you have the money, Charley, if you need it.’ The conversation came up about his speaking about the grocery bill being due, and that he was just about out of money. Then I said, ‘ Charley, you remember what I said about letting you have money on your insurance. I arranged that, and I heard Lew say he would do it too, if you want it.’ * * *
“Charley first spoke about transferring this insurance ' to me on the day he came to our house; I think it was on October 15th. He said he could not get a division of the property. ‘All I can handle or control is my insurance, and,’ he says, ‘ I am going to control it, and I have made up my mind to assign it to you.’ He says, ‘ I don’t want Allie to have it. She has got all I have earned for the last 50 years, all my lifetime, and now the insurance I ■don’t propose she shall have.’ On Friday morning he [656]*656first mentioned about paying mother out of his insurance, what he owed her. He said, ‘ I have something to say when mother is in the room,’ and when she came in, he said to me, ‘ I want you to see that mother gets her pay out of that insurance, the unsecured notes that she holds against me.’ And I said to him, ‘ Charley, at any time, if you ever need anything that you cannot supply yourself, call on me for it.’ He replied, ‘Well, you have al-. ways provided for me when I have needed it, in that way, but now we will have the insurance. I should not feel so much like a pensioner upon your charity, if I knew I could not pay it back, and if there is anything left, you have it.’ He said, ‘ Maybe I will use it all, but maybe I will not use any of it.’ * * *

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Balcer v. Peters
195 N.W.2d 83 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1972)
Knights of the Maccabees of World v. Brown
152 N.W. 1085 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1915)
Grand Lodge, Ancient Order of United Workmen v. Brown
125 N.W. 400 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1910)
Grand Lodge of Ancient Order of United Workmen v. Beath
114 N.W. 662 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1908)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
107 N.W. 447, 143 Mich. 652, 1906 Mich. LEXIS 707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/great-camp-knights-of-the-modern-maccabees-v-deem-mich-1906.