9 Mo. App. 412 | Mo. Ct. App. | 1880
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a bill of interpleader filed by a benefit society to determine which of two claimants is entitled to a fund payable by the society on the death of a member. The claimants are the administrator of the deceased member and the administrator of his deceased wife. The case was tried upon an agreed statement of facts, and the finding of the trial court was in favor of the representatives of the deceased member and against the claim of the representatives of his wife.
The Expressmen’s Aid Society is a voluntary association. Its objects are declared in its constitution to be'“ the accumulation of a fund to be paid to the legal representatives of a member at his death, or in case of total permanent disability.” The officers are a president, etc., with an executive committee of members. The memberships are divided into classes, each class having a local secretary, who collects funds from the members. The by-laws provide that any healthy employee of a responsible express company, if of good character, may become a member, on application and presenting the proper certificates. The member is entitled to a certificate stating to whom the amount in the
Charles Wilby was an employee of the Adams Express Company, residing in St. Louis. He became a member of the Expressmen’s Aid Society on March 5, 1875. On becoming a member, he gave the name of his wife, Margaret Wilby, as the person he designated to receive the benefits in case of his death, and received a certificate from the society stating that he had become a member, and that the benefits were payable to Margaret Wilby. In April, 1878, Margaret Wilby died. She never had any children. In October, 1878, Charles Wilby died, in good standing with the society, and having made no change in the beneficiary. The heirs of Charles Wilby are a father and mother, brothers and sisters. The heir of his wife is a niece. There are no assets of either estate except the fund in controversy. Both estates are indebted. The fund in controversy in this case is $1,820, which has been paid into court.
The wife had no vested interest in the provision made
The disposition was revocable. In cases of legacies and donations mortis causa, where the intention to prevent the consequences of a lapse is not clearly manifested, the gift or legacy, being based on love and affection, lapses on the death of the legatee before the testator. The will does not take effect until the death of the testator; and if the beneficiary is dead at that time, the heirs of the beneficiary named in the will are not to be substituted for him as the objects of the testator’s bounty. It is not to be presumed that because the testator makes no change in his will on the death of the legatee, he therefore desires that the heirs of the legatee named shall take in case the person named as legatee is not in existence when the will goes into effect. That case is not parallel with the one before us, but there is an analogy between them. Wilby declared that this money, in the event of his death, was to be paid to his wife ;
The organic law of this society declares its object to be-the accumulation of a fund to be paid, in case of death, to the legal representatives of a member. And the by-laws-provide for the payment of the fund, in case of failure to elect, to the legal representatives of the deceased. The meaning seems to be, that if the member has failed to appoint a beneficiary, or if at the date of his death there is no appointee named by him, alive and capable of taking, it is to go to his next of kin. lu the case of the Express-men’s Mutual Benefit Association, which was argued and submitted with this case, the object of the association is declared to be “ to aid and benefit the families of deceased members in a simple and substantial manner.” In both cases, the object of the society-is clearly declared, in its. charter, to be the accumulation of a fund to be paid, in caseot death, to the relatives of the deceased.
The case.is not, perhaps, entirely free from doubt. But. after due consideration we are of opinion that, the appointee-not being alive at the time of the death of the member, the-true meaning of the contract is that the fund should be paid,, according to the declared objects of the society, to the next, of kin of the deceased.
The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.