Union Mutual Ass'n v. Montgomery

38 N.W. 588, 70 Mich. 587, 1888 Mich. LEXIS 857
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedJune 8, 1888
StatusPublished
Cited by52 cases

This text of 38 N.W. 588 (Union Mutual Ass'n v. Montgomery) 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
Union Mutual Ass'n v. Montgomery, 38 N.W. 588, 70 Mich. 587, 1888 Mich. LEXIS 857 (Mich. 1888).

Opinion

Chahplin, J.

A bill of interpleader was filed by the above-named complainant against defendants, who each lays claim to a fund which the association acknowledges itself liable for and willing to pay to the one legally entitled. The following facts are admitted:

“1. That said Union Mutual Association is a co-operative and mutual benefit society, organized and doing business under and in pursuance of an act of the State of Michigan entitled cAn act to provide for the incorporation of co-operative and mutual benefit associations/ being chapter 118 of Howell’s Annotated Statutes; that the object of said association is to secure to the family or heirs of any member, upon his death, a certain sum of money, to be paid out of the proceeds of an assessment upon the members; and that all persons whose lives are insured are members of the association.

<f2. That every person desirous of becoming a member makes to the association a written application for membership, wherein, among other matters, he sets forth the amount of insurance desired, and the name of the beneficiary; that, upon the admission of a member, the association issues to him a certificate of membership, in the form hereto annexed, constituting him a member, and containing a promise to pay, upon the death of such member, to such member of his family or heirs as were named in said application, a sum of money in accordance with the articles of association, by-laws, and other rules and conditions prescribed by the association,

“3. That upon the 20th day of January, A. D. 1883, one Edward C. Franklin, then a resident of Ann Arbor, in this State, made to the association a written application for membership, which is hereto annexed and made a part hereof, marked ‘ Exhibit A;’ that in and by said application he requested insurance to the amount of SI,500, to be made payable, in case of death, to Cecelia M. Franklin, his wife, and Charlotte A. Franklin, his daughter, equally, with the further direction that, in case of the death of either, the full amount should go to the survivor.

“á. That upon the 22d day of January, A. D. 1883, the association admitted said Edward C. Franklin to membership, as requested in said application, and upon that day issued to him a certificate of membership, which is hereto annexed and made a part hereof, marked ‘ Exhibit B/ wherein said association constituted him a member, and promised [590]*590to pay to his wife and daughter, Cecelia M. and Charlotte A. Franklin, — in case of death of either full amount to go to the other, — the sum of $1,500, upon certain conditions therein named, which certificate was duly delivered to said Edward C. Franklin. .

“ 5. That afterwards, on December 16, 1884, said Edward C. Franklin, who had then removed to St. Louis, Mo., wrote to the secretary of the association the letter hereto annexed and made a part hereof, marked ‘ Exhibit 0,’ which letter was replied to by one of the clerks in the office of the association; that a few days later said Edward 0. Franklin returned said certificate, marked ‘ Exhibit B,’ to the association by ' mail from St. Louis, with the marginal directions as to change of beneficiaries, signed by him, as appears upon said certificate, and surrendered the same to said association, in whose possession it has since been.

“ 6. That upon December 23, 1884, a new certificate was 'issued and delivered to him by mailing the same to him at St. Louis, which new certificate is hereto annexed, made a part hereof, and marked ‘Exhibit D,’ wherein the names of the beneficiaries were changed, as requested in said letter, to his son, N. Lyon Franklin, and daughter, Charlotte A. Franklin, with the same provision, that, ‘incase of death of either, . full amount to go to survivor;’ which new certificate was of the same number as the one surrendered, and was intended to bear the same date, but, by mistake of the clerk who filled it up, it was dated one year later than the first one. At the same time said clerk erased the words, ‘ Cecelia M. Franklin, his wife,’ in the said application, and inserted the words, ‘ N. Lyon Franklin, son.’

“ 7. That while said re-issued certificate was in force, and ■on or about December 10, 1885, said Edwin C. Franklin died, leaving surviving him his said wife, son, and daughter; that satisfactory proofs of such death were duly furnished to said association on or about January 20, 1886, by said N. Lyon Franklin and Charlotte A. Franklin, who was then married and become Charlotte A. Montgomery, and each of them claimed payment of one-half of the amount named in said certificate, which by the terms thereof would become due and payable at the expiration of 90 days after the receipt of said proofs, to wit, on April 20, 1886; that said Cecelia M. Franklin did not join in said proofs, nor make any claim therein as beneficiary.

“ 8. That before the time for the payment of said amount arrived, and on or about February 1, 1886, said hi. Lyon [591]*591Franklin died, leaving a last will and testament, which disposed of his entire estate, and was duly admitted to probate at the residence of said deceased, St. Louis, Mo., and the execution thereof was granted to the above-named Samuel Ellis, the executor therein named.

“ 9. That on or about May 5,1886, said association paid one-half of said sum, to wit, $?50, to sa'd Charlotte A. Montgomery, and on or about August 14, 1886, paid the remaining $750, under an order of the circuit court for the county of •Calhoun, in chancery, to the register of said court.

“ 10. That the application was made by said Edward 0. Franklin in person, and upon his own motion, neither his wife nor any of the beneficiaries having any part therein, but after having talked the matter over with said Cecelia M. Franklin; that he paid the advance payment required; that all •assessment and other notices were sent to him, and that he paid all of the assessments and dues that were paid; that ■assessment notices have been issued, and assessments made •and paid, only upon one certificate as No. 3,463, and only for the sum of $1,500; and that at least three assessments, at intervals of three months apart, were made between the time ■of issuing the second certificate and the date of the death of said Edward C. Franklin.

“11. That the association has no capital stock, nor any-fund, income, or means from which to pay death losses, except such as is derived from assessments made upon all the members having certificates in force at the death of any member, each member paying assessments at a fixed rate per $1,000 of insurance, said rate being determined by his'age at admission, and that the failure of the member to pay assessments or dues within 40 dayk terminates the membership and avoids the certificate.

“ 12. That the following provisions are contained in the articles of association and by-laws, in relation to the designation and change of beneficiaries, and are the only provisions upon the subject:

“ ‘ ARTICLES OE ASSOCIATION.
“ ‘ Sec. 5. The object of the incorporation is to secure, at its maturity, to the beneficiary named in the certificate of any member then in good standing, the payment of the sum specified in such certificate.’
“ ‘ BY-LAWS.
“ ‘ Sec. 28. When an applicant is accepted, he shall receive a certificate of membership signed by the president and secretary, under [592]

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

Related

Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance v. Burke
368 S.E.2d 301 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1988)
Detroit Trust Co. v. Stoepel
20 N.W.2d 148 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1945)
Fink v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins.
29 F. Supp. 972 (E.D. Michigan, 1939)
Shields v. Barton
60 F.2d 351 (Seventh Circuit, 1932)
Missouri State Life Ins. v. Young
38 F.2d 399 (Ninth Circuit, 1930)
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. May
10 Tenn. App. 221 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1929)
New York Life Insurance Co. v. Cook
211 N.W. 648 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1927)
In Re Churchill's Estate
203 N.W. 118 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1925)
Horst v. United States
283 F. 600 (S.D. Ohio, 1922)
Gristy v. Hudgens
203 P. 569 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1922)
Supreme Assembly of United Artisans v. Johnson
186 P. 1065 (Washington Supreme Court, 1920)
Heffelfinger v. Appleton
175 N.W. 105 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1919)
Modern Brotherhood of America v. Hudson
160 N.W. 406 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1916)
New Era Ass'n v. Kuyat
158 N.W. 119 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1916)
Schiller-Bund v. Knack
150 N.W. 337 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1915)
Stender v. Stender
148 N.W. 255 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1914)
Ensign v. Dunn
148 N.W. 343 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1914)
Johnson v. New York Life Insurance
56 Colo. 178 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1914)
McEwen v. New York Life Insurance
139 P. 242 (California Court of Appeal, 1914)
Van Gallow v. Brandt
134 N.W. 1018 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1912)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
38 N.W. 588, 70 Mich. 587, 1888 Mich. LEXIS 857, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/union-mutual-assn-v-montgomery-mich-1888.