Wood River times. [volume] (Hailey, Idaho) 1882-1915, 1883-10-22
BENEFICIARY CERTIFICATES.
They Cannot be Reached by Attach.
ment or Execution for Debt Owing by
Deceased Holder-Interesting In.
formation for the 4. o. L. W,


More than two years ago Grand
Master Barnes Of the y. o. L. W. of
California made several important de.
cislons, which were unanimously con-
CURED in by the Grand Lodge Of this
state, which have beer adopted by
other States and on several occasions
approved by various courts of law.
Among these decisions were: /
That the laws Of the order required
that beneficiary certificates should
name the person or persons to whom
the money was paid in the event of
death, and that if a certificate was
made payable to will" or "order.' :
aud no will" or ''oIder" was made
specifying said money, that said
certificate was legally payable to no
one. :. That no claim Of creditors
coul! be recognized, but that the
money must be paid to the party des-
Ignated. ). That unless he certif-
cate read ''payablc to estate or
illegal representatives. no claim Of
executors, administrators, etc, would
be entertained. I. That beneficiary
moneys could not be considered as
estate, unless the certificate dis.
tlnctly stated that they should be.
In number Of instances " hen a
IA y has died, self Reconstructed admin.
ls!rators have arisen, but not one Of
them yet has ever obtained the money.
Hosts Of creditors have often endeav-
ored to secure MONEYS of the widow
and orphan, and thus far have failed.
here are many, however, ignorant Of
the laws upon the subject, tho might
be deprived Of their beneficiary
III tie future, and therefore
we reprint the above. not only for
their benefit, but to induce member,
WHO have their certificates made out
IN an uncertain manner, to correct
them Immediately, and, according to
iraternal law, specify tie party or par
ties to whom the money shall 90 in
the event of their death.
The following decisions Of the New
Jersey and Or, gon courts strcnrthen
the California decisions above given:
"A rather peculiar case of "a legal
character is at present exercising the
fraternity i'll Jersey City, and as it is
Of interest to the order in general, we
state TIE facts, which are as follows:
y short time ago a beneficiary certiti-
cate was satisfied, and the money de-
posted in the bank to the credit
If the widow Of TIE deceased. At the
time Of the brothers death there were
several unsatisfied judgments existing
against him, and the holders of said
judgments seek by attachment to re-
cover upon the judgments.
We append the opinion of Judge
David McAdam, Of the Marine Court.
'hs city, Which is concurred in by
'ther legal men how on the bench
within this st tie and that of New
Jersey as well. 1t is as follows:
NV here, upon the death Of a men,
Der of benevolent society, graf
ilty is given to the widow CT other per.
son desi grated by the member prior
% his decease, the beneficiary takes
he gratni'v free Of the claims Of cred /
tors OF the dead member, and it can
either be seized nor tax zen upon any
such demand. The right to the money
'ccrues OIL Y upon the death of the .
ne mber, so that the money was at no
line his, and it forms no part Of his
state. W here the bv- laws Of the So
''ctv make the money payable to the
legal representatives Of the deceased
member, a different question arises.
In this latter event, letters of adj
nlnls'ration may be necessary to OBJ
AN the money, which would have to
'e administered upon in due course.
But where the money Is PAYABLE
|lrectly to the widow or other person
it is like life insurance
'o!icy, which is collectlble only bv the
beneficiary named in it. Such money
annot, as before remarked, be reached
y attachment or execution founded
n debt owing by the deceased
DAVID McApAM."
"Concurrcd IN by TIE Hons. Roscoe
joseph u. Beedle and Leon
Abbott
Our readers will reco ct that we
ad last year "A somewhat similar case.
nat of Brother " lny OF Tacoma I.od,
80. rs, winch turned up similar
rlncilles. In that case Bother .
' ING died leaving an unwitne>saa i.
ocument, purportlna TO be viii, by
inch he directed the proceeds of his
enehclary certificate to be divided
luaily between certain relatives. r. e
rebate Court of Pierce County, :
ashlngton Territory, refused probutt ,
sand document and appointed am :