14 S.D. 340 | S.D. | 1901
In addition to the statement of the issues involved in this action, to be found in our former decision (13 S. D. 132, 82 N. W. 404), it should be observed that Emma Roberts, a sister of the deceased member of the defendant order, was made a party defendant ; that she appeared and answered, claiming the fund in controversy by virtue of an alleged change of beneficiary in accordance with the rules of the order; and that the relief demanded by the plainttiff includes a cancellation and surrender of the beneficiary certificate issued to her in place of the one formerly issued to the plaintiff, the widow of the deceased member. It should also be observed, as alluded to in our former opinion, that the defendant lodge alleges in its separate answer that the draft for $2,000 drawn by the proper authorities of the order “has not been delivered to the defendant Emma Roberts, but is now held by the proper custodian in order to be delivered to the said Emma Roberts, or to such other person as the court may direct on the trial of this action.” Therefore the